Tifft Co. v. State Medical Institute

• Decision Date: 03 June 1909
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: TIFFT CO. v. STATE MEDICAL INSTITUTE.

101 P. 1081

53 Wash. 365

TIFFT CO. v. STATE MEDICAL INSTITUTE.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 3, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Geo. E. Morris, Judge.

Action by the Tifft Company against the State Medical Institute. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss.

Jay C Allen, for appellant.

Guie &amp Guie, for respondent.

CHADWICK J.

Robert Abrams is the owner of a building located at the corner of Second Avenue South and Washington street, in the city of Seattle. The Seattle Brewing & Malting Company held a lease for the lower floor, and had sublet to the Tifft Company, a corporation, which occupied the storeroom as a saloon. The upper floor had been leased to one Linde, who had sublet certain rooms, together with a stairway leading down to Washington street, to the State Medical Institute, a corporation. The rooms occupied by defendant were so arranged that the only entrance to them was from Washington street. There were three entrances to the saloon--one on Second Avenue South, one on Washington street near the corner, and one on the same street leading into the back part of the saloon. The stairway spoken of landed flush with the back door of the saloon on an areaway about 10 feet long, with an inset of about four feet. The defendant had begun the erection of a partition between the landing of the stairway and the back door of the saloon, which, if carried out to the sidewalk line, would have divided the area or recess in the building, leaving an entrance four feet wide into the stairway and six feet wide into the saloon door. Upon this state of facts plaintiff brought this action alleging an interference with the entrance way to the saloon a shutting off of light, and 'incalculable damage.' A trial on the merits was had in the court below, resulting in a decree perpetually enjoining defendant from the erection or maintenance of the partition, from which decree defendant has appealed.

The statement of the facts is a statement of the whole case; and the only question for review is whether the evidence warrants the findings of the trial court. The evidence shows that the light was not interfered with to any appreciable extent, and bearing in mind the width of the recess, it would seem that we could say, in the absence of all testimony, that it would not. Nor does it appear how or why the free ingress or egress of patrons of...