Town of Gold Bar v. Gold Bar Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1920
• Docket Number: 15506.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: TOWN OF GOLD BAR v. GOLD BAR LUMBER CO. et al.

186 P. 896

109 Wash. 391

TOWN OF GOLD BAR v. GOLD BAR LUMBER CO. et al.

No. 15506.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 12, 1920

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guy C. Alston, Judge.

Action by the Town of Gold Bar against the Gold Bar Lumber Company and J. S. Mackenzie. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed, and cause dismissed.

Peters & Powell, of Seattle, for appellants.

Cooley Horan & Mulvihill, of Everett, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

This action was brought to recover the value of certain pipes and water connections alleged to have been converted by the defendants. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $275. The defendants have appealed.

The facts are as follows: The Gold Bar Lumber Company owns and operates a large sawmill outside of the corporate limits of the town of Gold Bar, in Snohomish county, this state. Prior to the 23d day of September, 1913, the Gold Bar Lumber Company had constructed a gravity water system through which it furnished water to its mill plant and then to the inhabitants of the town of Gold Bar. On the 23d day of September, 1913, the Gold Bar Lumber Company sold and conveyed its gravity water system to the Gold Bar Light &amp Water Company, a corporation. The deed of conveyance described the property conveyed as follows:

'The water rights on Olney creek; the right of way and the pipe line or gravity water system located and situated on the northeast quarter (N. E. 1/4) of section thirty-six (36) township twenty-eight (28), range eight (8); thence through [here follows a description of a number of government lots and quarter sections in section 31, township 28, range 9, and a number of quarter sections in section 6, township 27, range 9, through which the pipe line runs] to corporate limits of the town of Gold Bar; thence on Railroad avenue east to the intersection of Eighth street and on First street from the intersection of Railroad avenue north to Lewis avenue; thence on Lewis avenue east to Fifth street; thence south on Fifth street to Railroad avenue--intending hereby to convey all the pipe lines, right of way, and hydrants of said gravity water system within the corporate limits of the town of Gold Bar Snohomish county, Wash.

'Together with the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging to or in any wise appertaining.

'To have and to hold the said premises, with the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, its heirs and assigns, forever.'

Then follows the usual warranty, from which is excepted a portion of the lands in section 36. The Gold Bar Light & Water Company operated the plant until the 21st day of June, 1917 when by bill of sale and warranty deed it sold and conveyed the water system to the town of Gold Bar. While the plant was being operated by the Gold Bar Light & Water Company, that company refused to make any repairs to the pipe lines within the Gold Bar Lumber Company's yards. On one occasion, when there was a leak in the main pipe line, the water company made the repair, but refused to make repairs to pipes leading from the main line within the yards of the Gold Bar Lumber Company. In the month of February, 1918, the Gold Bar Lumber Company dug up and removed certain pipes and water connections within their yards and converted these water pipes and connections to their own use. The town of Gold Bar then brought this action to recover the value of the pipes and connections so dug up by the Gold Bar Lumber Company, claiming to own the same. The trial court was of the opinion that the pipes, connections, and hydrants within the yards of the Gold Bar Lumber Company were a part of the system, and for that reason gave judgment in favor of respondent. Respondent contends that the intent of the parties must primarily be gathered from a fair consideration of the deed, and the language employed therein should be consistent with the terms of the deed, including its scope and subject-matter; that the object in construing the deed is to ascertain the intention of the parties, especially that of the grantor; that some meaning should be given to...