Simons v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 07 January 1911 |
| Citation | 112 P. 653,61 Wash. 574 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | SIMONS v. WILSON. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke Judge.
Action by Mildred Simons against John A. Wilson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
C. C Upton, for appellant.
D. W Henley, for respondent.
Respondent is the owner of lots in Cannon Hill addition to Spokane which are unimproved and unoccupied. In the street abutting on the north of said lots and in the alley at the rear, a number of pine trees were growing. Between the north lot line and the south curb line of the street, the trees were from six to twelve inches in diameter. Those in the alley were somewhat smaller. In March, 1909, appellant, without any authority or permission so to do, and for no apparent purpose so far as we can ascertain from the record, cut these trees down and carried them away. Thereupon respondent commenced this action under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 939, providing: 'Whenever any person shall cut down, girdle, or otherwise injure or carry off any tree, timber, or shrub on the land of another person, or on the street or highway in front of any person's house, village, town or city lot, or cultivated ground, or on the common or public grounds of any village, town, or city, or on the street or highway in front thereof without lawful authority, in an action by such person, village, town or city against the person committing such trespass or any of them, if judgment be given for the plaintiff, it shall be given for treble the amount of damages claimed or assessed therefor.' Upon the trial, the court found for respondent, and assessed the damage at the sum of $100, which, as provided in the statute, was trebled, and judgment given for $300, from which defendant appeals.
The contention of appellant here is that respondent has no right of action, not being the owner of the land upon which the trees were growing when cut, and that the section quoted simply provides the measure of damage in cases where the right of action exists independent of the statute. He also suggests that the lot owner has no title to any portion of the abutting street. It seems clear that, irrespective of whether the fee to the streets is in the municipality or the abutting lot owners, a right of action is given by this statute to the lot owner against any person cutting down the trees growing on the street...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jongeward v. BNSF Ry. Co.
...cases both before and after the 1932 codification. See Mullally v. Parks, 29 Wash.2d 899, 908–09, 190 P.2d 107 (1948); Simons v. Wilson, 61 Wash. 574, 112 P. 653 (1911). So while we sometimes express a “high regard for the lowly comma,” Peters v. Watson Co., 40 Wash.2d 121, 123, 241 P.2d 44......
-
Motoramp Garage Co. v. City of Tacoma
...Co., 54 Wash. 460, 103 P. 807; Gifford v. Horton, 54 Wash. 595, 103 P. 988; Brazell v. Seattle, 55 Wash. 180, 104 P. 155; Simons v. Wilson, 61 Wash. 574, 112 P. 653; Gray v. Ramsay, 117 Wash. 255, 200 P. 1074, 204 4. This fee ownership of the street, of course, is subject to the easement ex......
-
Rayonier, Incorporated v. Polson
...described in the statute. Some of these acts would not necessarily have constituted common law trespasses Simons v. Wilson, 61 Wash. 574, 575, 112 P. 653, 654 (1911), and certainly the treble damage recovery provided by the statute was not contemplated at common law. The Washington legislat......
-
Grays Harbor County v. Bay City Lumber Co.
...243 (defendant had 'no good reason * * * to believe' the timber was his own); Harold v. Toomey, 92 Wash. 297, 158 P. 986; Simons v. Wilson, 61 Wash. 574, 112 P. 653; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Myers-Parr Mill Co., 54 Wash. 447, 103 P. 453 (defendant made no claim that trespass was casual or in......