Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber & Shingle Mill Co.
Decision Date | 15 November 1910 |
Citation | 111 P. 578,60 Wash. 502 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | PACIFIC IRON WORKS v. BRYANT LUMBER & SHINGLE MILL CO. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Ralph Kauffman Judge.
The Board of State Land Commissioners awarded the Pacific Iron Works the preference right to purchase shore lands of the first class, adversely to the Bryant Lumber & Shingle Mill Company. From a judgment of the superior court reversing this decision, the Iron Works appeal. Reversed, with directions.
Roberts, Battle, Hulbert & Tennant, and J. L Corrigan, for appellant.
James Kiefer, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of King county, reversing a decision of the Board of State Land Commissioners, which awarded to the appellant the preference right to purchase certain shore lands of the first class on Lake Union. By sections 6750, 6754, Rem. & Bal. Code, the preference right to purchase tide and shore lands of the first class is granted for a limited period to the following persons, and in the following order: First, to the owners of valuable improvements in actual use, prior to the 26th day of March, 1890, for commerce, trade, residence, or business second, to bona fide purchasers from the abutting upland owners; and, third, to the abutting upland owners. The respondent claims the preference right solely as an improver of the shore lands, while the appellant claims as an improver, an upland owner, and as a bona fide purchaser from the upland owner.
In view of the singleness of its claim, we will first consider the case presented by the respondent. The facts in brief are as follows: Some time prior to the 24th day of December, 1889 Goddard Bros., the predecessors in interest of the respondent Pacific Iron Works, purchased lots 10 and 11, of Denny & Hoyt's supplemental plat to the city of Seattle, and constructed a foundry and machine shops thereon. At or about the same time one Mary A. F. Phillips, predecessor in interest of the appellant Bryant Lumber & Shingle Mill Company, purchased lots 8 and 9 of the same plat, and soon thereafter she, or her successor in interest, the Fremont Manufacturing Company, built a wharf and constructed a three-story sash and door factory thereon. The sash and door factory was destroyed by fire on the 24th day of December, 1889, and whatever rights Goddard Bros. acquired as improvers were so acquired between that date and the 26th day of March, 1890, a period of about three months. The testimony is very meager and indefinite as to the extent or character of the improvements made by Goddard Bros., or as to the time when they were made, and there is an entire lack of testimony as to the value of any such improvements. The fire which destroyed the sash and door factory established by the Fremont Manufacturing Company on lots 8 and 9 left the piling and a part of the covering on which the superstructure was erected intact. Some time after the fire, but whether prior to March 26, 1890, is extremely doubtful, Goddard Bros. built what is called an 'office building' on this piling or platform. There is no description of the building in the record, except such as the name might indicate, and no testimony whatever as to its value. It does appear, however, that it took one of the Goddards two or three days to construct the building. A coke shed was likewise constructed, partly on these lots and partly on an adjacent railroad right of way. This was in all probability after March 26, 1896. The testimony is equally indefinite as to the character of this building, aside from the fact that it was an open shed, capable of holding about a half ton of coke. Its value is not shown. These two structures are the sum total...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northport Power & Light Co. v. Hartley
...357, 38 P. 1126; Knapp v. Crawford, 16 Wash. 524, 48 P. 261; Spokane v. Colby, 16 Wash. 610, 48 P. 248; Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber & Shingle Mill Co., 60 Wash. 502, 111 P. 578; Neitzel v. Spokane International R. Co., 65 Wash. 100, 117 P. 864, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 522; Boatman v. La......
-
Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n
...long as the same shall be used for the operation of a railroad" construed as granting easement); Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber & Shingle Mill Co., 60 Wash. 502, 505, 111 P. 578 (1910) (deed providing "to have and to hold the said premises ... for railway purposes, but if it should cea......
-
Ray v. King County
...long as the same shall be used for the operation of a railroad" construed as granting easement); Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber & Shingle Mill Co., 60 Wash. 502, 505, 111 P. 578 (1910) (deed providing "to have and to hold the said premises ... for railway purposes, but if it should cea......
-
Brown v. State
...long as the same shall be used for the operation of a railroad" construed as granting easement); Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber & Shingle Mill Co., 60 Wash. 502, 505, 111 P. 578 (1910) (deed providing "to have and to hold the said premises ... for railway purposes, but if it should cea......