Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle Const. & Dry Dock Co.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | 14574. |
| Citation | Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle Const. & Dry Dock Co., 102 Wash. 608, 173 P. 508 (Wash. 1918) |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | PIONEER SAND & GRAVEL CO. v. SEATTLE CONSTRUCTION & DRY DOCK CO. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Kenneth Mackintosh, Judge.
Suit by the Pioneer Sand & Gravel Company against the Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Company. From a decree for complainant, respondent appeals. Affirmed.
Bogle, Graves, Merritt & Bogle, of Seattle, for appellant.
W. H White, Chas. E. Patterson, and Tom S. Patterson, all of Seattle, for respondent.
This action is brought by the respondent, the owner of certain tidelands, to enjoin the appellant, the owner of adjoining tidelands, from improving such adjoining lands by piling and planking the same, and to require the appellant to remove certain piling, buildings, and structures already placed thereon by the appellant. The respondent's action is based upon its contention that it is the owner of an easement on the strip of appellant's tidelands, 33 feet in width adjoining the south line of respondent's lands, and extending easterly from the inner harbor line approximately 260 feet. Prior to March 25, 1890, an attempt was made to lay out and plat an addition to the city of Seattle known as Dearborn's Second addition, which plat designated a strip of said tidelands as Charles street, which so-called street extended westerly from Commercial street, now First avenue south, to the deep water of Elliott Bay, the center line thereof being approximately coincident with the north line of the strip 33 feet wide owned by the appellant, and upon which respondent claims an easement by virtue of the agreement hereinafter set forth. On February 11, 1895, the plat of the Seattle tidelands, including the lands involved in this action, made by the tideland appraisers of King county, was filed in the office of the auditor of King county, and on the 15th day of March, 1895, the official plat of said tidelands was filed in the office of the board of state land commissioners at Olympia. The respondent's claim is based upon a written agreement entered into on March 13, 1895, and recorded in the office of the county auditor of King county, Wash., on May 29, 1895. At the time said agreement was made neither of the parties thereto had any title to the lands involved, except that they were in possession, had made valuable improvements, and claimed to have and had a preference right of purchase, as given by the statute. The contract referred to, upon which respondent bases its rights, is as follows:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Friends of Columbia River v. U.S. Forest Service
..."a very strong presumption exists in favor of construing easements as appurtenant." Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle Const. & Dry Dock Co., 102 Wash. 608, 618, 175 P. 508, 511 (1918). The USFS claims that Sirrah's easement is appurtenant because the language of the reserved easement in ......
-
State v. McCollum
... ... Ward, both of Seattle, for appellant ... Leslie ... 1, Wis.Const., supra, and ... was improperly received ... In ... Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle, Construction & Dry ... Dock Co., 102 Wash. 608, 619, 173 P. 508, 511, we ... ...
-
Port of Seattle v. Oregon Co
...of access to deep water it is by arrangement with the owner of the interevening land. Compare Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Co., 102 Wash. 608, 173 Pac. 508. The cases most strongly relied upon by the railroad do not relate to tidelands. They deal with the rig......
-
Olson v. Trippel
...there is a "very strong" presumption that an easement is appurtenant rather than in gross. Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle Const. & Dry Dock Co., 102 Wash. 608, 618, 173 P. 508 (1918); Green, 32 Wash.App. at 323, 647 P.2d Roggow, 27 Wash.App. at 912, 621 P.2d 195; Winsten, 23 Wash.App.......
-
Table of Cases
...Co. v. Hedlund, 178 Wash. 273, 34 P.2d 878 (1934): 23.4(1)(a), 23.4(2)(c) Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle Constr. & Dry Dock Co., 102 Wash. 608, 173 P. 508 (1918): 6.4(5)(f), 7.2(3), 8.2(3)(b), 8.2(3)(f)(iii) Pitcher v. Ravven, 137 Wash. 343, 242 P. 375 (1926): 22.3(4)(b)(i) Pitman v. ......
-
Table of Cases
...v. E. & Pac. Enters. Trust, 41 Wn. App. 158, 702 P.2d 1232 (1985): 18.3(4) Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle Constr. & Dry Dock Co., 102 Wash. 608,173 P. 508 (1918): 14.2 Plaza Farmer's Union Warehouse & Elevator Co. v. Tomlinson, 183 Wash. 617,49 P.2d 36 (1935): 9.3(1)(b) Porter v. Whee......
-
§8.2 - Running of Covenants in General
...wall if the covenantee used the wall was enforced as a running covenant); Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle Constr. & Dry Dock Co., 102 Wash. 608, 173 P. 508 (1918) (mutual covenant by parties to keep waterway open was a running covenant). Washington cases upholding covenants to pay dues......
-
§6.4 - Effect of Recordation as Notice
...A; the recording act provides no protection for R, the subsequent taker. Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co. v. Seattle Constr. & Dry Dock Co., 102 Wash. 608, 173 P. 508 (1918); see also 17 POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY §82.03[2][b] (Michael Allan Wolf ed. 2000 and Supp. In the second situation, O conveys ......