Seymour v. La Furgey

• Decision Date: 01 November 1907
• Citation: 47 Wash. 450,92 P. 267
• Parties: SEYMOUR v. LA FURGEY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

92 P. 267

47 Wash. 450

SEYMOUR v. LA FURGEY.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 1, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, Mason County; O. V. Linn, Judge.

Action by William W. Seymour against G. A. La Furgey. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Eugene Carr and N. Soderberg, for appellant.

Frank D. Nash, for respondent.

ROOT J.

This is an appeal from an order granting an injunction pendente lite against appellant's removing timber or property from certain premises. Appellant and respondent entered into a contract, whereby appellant purchased and agreed to remove certain standing timber from respondent's land situated in Mason county, and respondent permitted appellant to use a logging outfit situate upon said premises. Respondent, in his complaint, alleged that the defendant had violated the terms of the contract in many particulars, and brought his action to have said contract determined to be at an end, and for possession fo the premises and property leased by said contract. Appellant appeared with a demurrer and an affidavit and motion for change of venue to Pierce county, setting forth that he was a resident of that county. The trial court denied his motion, and this ruling is alleged as error. Subsequently another motion for a change of venue was made upon the ground that most of the witnesses lived in Pierce county, and that for this and other reasons it would be much more convenient and less expensive to have the trial in said county. This motion was also denied.

It is urged by appellant that this is a transitory action, and consequently not necessary to be tried in the county where the property is situated. We do not think this contention can be upheld. Logging contracts of this character certainly affect very materially the lands upon which the timber is growing. They contemplate that the person removing the timber must take possession of the land and use it while cutting and taking off such timber. It is the policy of our law that all transactions affecting the title to real estate shall be matters of record in the county where such real estate is situated, so that any one concerned therewith may be informed as to the condition of its title by an examination of the public records in such county. We think that this contract affected the title to and interests in these lands in such a manner as to make an action for its forfeiture local in its character. Consequently...