Scurry v. Jones
| Decision Date | 24 June 1892 |
| Citation | 4 Wash. 468,30 P. 726 |
| Parties | SCURRY ET AL. v. JONES ET AL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. HUMES, Judge.
Action by Nellie M. Scurry and others against W. M. Jones and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
J C. Haines, ( L. B. Stedman, of counsel,) for appellants.
I M. Hall, for respondent Jones.
This was an action in the nature of ejectment. The plaintiffs' evidence showed that they held under the patentee from the United States. Their testimony also showed that, although the lands sought to be recovered were within the calls of the patent under which they held, they were situated between the line of ordinary high and low tide, in Elliott bay. Upon this appearing, the court below rendered a judgment of nonsuit against the plaintiffs. The only question presented for our consideration is as to the nature of the title to lands so situated which the United States have, in form at least, conveyed by patent. It is contended on the part of appellants that by virtue of the patent, and of the action of the state of Washington in the adoption of its constitution, their title to the lands in question became perfect. On the other hand, it is contended that the action of the United States authorities in assuming to patent land so situated was absolutely null and void, and that the disclaimer in the state constitution could therefore have no effect in favor of the patentees or those holding under them. If the position of respondents in relation to the effect of patents upon lands situated below the line of ordinary high tide be conceded, it does not follow that the disclaimer on the part of the state in its constitution could have no effect. The language of section 2 of article 17 is that "the state of Washington disclaims all title in and claim to all tide, swamp, and overflowed lands patented by the United States: provided, the same is not impeached for fraud;" and, fairly construed, we think it must be held to have, in effect, confirmed the patents which covered such lands; for, while it is true that the language used is not in form confirmatory, yet, when we take into consideration the situation of affairs and the object to be accomplished by such disclaimer, we do not see how this object can be given force without construing the language used as substantially a grant to the patentees of the interest of the state in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King Cnty. v. Abernathy
...P. 726 (1892). In other words, Section 2 is “substantially a grant to the patentees of the interest of the state in the land so situated.” Id. at 469. test to determine the applicability of Section 2 “is a simple one.” Anderson v. Olson, 77 Wn.2d 240, 243, 461 P.2d 343 (1969). If a claimant......
-
Port of Seattle v. Oregon Co
...belonging to the state,' approved March 9, 1893. Witness the seal of the state affixed. Henry McBride, Governor. 3 See Scurry v. Jones, 4 Wash. 468, 30 Pac. 726; Cogswell v. Forrest, 14 Wash. 1, 43 Pac. 1098; Washougal, etc., Transportation Co. v. Dalles, etc., Navigation Co., 27 Wash. 490,......
-
Kneeland v. Korter
...to be in effect a conveyance of the state's interest in these lands and confirmatory of the government's grant thereof. In Scurry v. Jones, 4 Wash. 468, 30 P. 726, this speaking by Hoyt, J., used the following language: 'The language of section 2 of article 17 is that 'the state of Washingt......
-
Smith Tug & Barge Co. v. Columbia-Pacific Towing Corp.
...was the farthest waterward. Essentially their argument is based on a combination of three cases and their legal progeny: Scurry v. Jones, 4 Wash. 468, 30 P. 726 (1892); Cogswell v. Forrest, 14 Wash. 1, 43 P. 1098 (1896); and Washougal & LaCamas Transp. Co. v. Dalles, Portland & Astoria Nav.......
-
§ 12.2 - Lands Managed by the Department of Natural Resources
...was above the line of ordinary high water at the time of statehood—at the line of ordinary high tide (water) in 1889. Scurry v. Jones, 4 Wash. 468, 469, 30 P. (1892); Brace & Hergert Mill Co. v. State, 49 Wash. 326, 329, 95 P. 278 (1908); see Smith Tug & Barge, 78 Wn.2d at 979. (4) On (a) l......
-
Table of Cases
...180, 667 P.2d 64 (1983): 11.3(2)(b), 11.6(1) Schultz v. Snohomish Cnty., 101 Wn. App. 693, 5 P.3d 767 (2000): 2.3(3) Scurry v. Jones, 4 Wash. 468, 30 P. 726 (1892): 12.2(5)(c)(i), 12.2(5)(c)(i) Seal v. Naches-Selah Irrig. Dist., 51 Wn. App. 1, 751 P.2d 873 (1988): 19.4(1) Seattle-King Cnty.......
-
Table of Cases
...72 Wash. 543, 130 P. 1145 (1913): 14.8(4) Schuss v. City of Chehalis, 82 Wash. 595, 144 P. 916 (1914): 3.2(2)(b)(ii) Scurry v. Jones, 4 Wash. 468, 30 P. 726 (1892): 4.4(2) Seal v. Naches-Selah Irrig. Dist., 51 Wn. App. 1, 751 P.2d 873, review denied,110 Wn.2d 1041 (1988): 8.4(1) Seattle Fac......
-
§ 4.4 - Government Lot Boundaries
...edge. Narrows Realty Co. v. State, 52 Wn.2d 843, 329 P.2d 836 (1958); Cogswell v. Forest, 14 Wash. 1, 43 P. 1098 (1896); Scurry v. Jones, 4 Wash. 468, 30 P. 726 (1892). See Diagram No. 2 in §4.30, Determining the date the patent was earned relative to the date of statehood becomes especiall......