Van De Vanter v. Flaherty
| Decision Date | 25 February 1905 |
| Citation | 37 Wash. 218,79 P. 794 |
| Parties | VAN DE VANTER v. FLAHERTY et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.
Action by Edward Van De Vanter against P.J. Flaherty and wife. From a judgment in favor of complainant, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Geo McKay, for appellants.
Frank S. Griffith, for respondent.
The plaintiff is the owner of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 10, township 22, range 4. The defendants are the owners of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and north half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of the same section. There is a public highway, known as the 'Des Moines Road,' running east and west through the center of said section 10. The land owned by the plaintiff is landlocked, and the only means of ingress and egress to and from said land is across the lands owned by the defendants, to the Des Moines Road, a distance of about 80 rods. The plaintiff claims a roadway by prescription across the lands of the defendants above described, and brings this action to establish said roadway and to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the use and enjoyment thereof. The plaintiff had judgment in the court below, and the defendants appeal therefrom. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, on the authority of McConnell v. Kaufman, 4 Wash. 229, 29 P. 1053.
While a great many errors are assigned in the appellants' brief we think the only questions of any importance may be discussed under the following heads. (1) Has the respondent a roadway by prescription over the lands of the appellants? And (2) if so, is such roadway sufficiently described in the judgment of the court?
1. The court below found, in effect, that the land of the plaintiff is landlocked; that there is no means of ingress or egress to or from said land, except by a roadway running across the westerly side of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said section 10; that said roadway has been used openly, notoriously, continuously, and adversely by the owners and occupants of the land now owned by the plaintiff for a period or more than 15 years, and the right to use said roadway over and across the lands now owned by the defendants has never been denied, but the same has been used, with the knowledge of all persons who owned or occupied the lands of the defendants, for said period of 15 years or more, and said roadway has been for said length of time well defined, open and apparent to all persons. While there is decided conflict in the testimony as to the particular roadway actually traveled and used, this court would not be warranted in disturbing the finding of the court below in that regard, and in all other respects we think the finding is supported by the testimony. The witness Wilcoxen occupied the land now owned by the plaintiff from 1884 to 1898, and during all that period he used the roadway in question, and expended $100 in building the roadway and keeping the same in repair. This witness and his successors in interest used the roadway continually for nearly 20 years without let or hindrance from any person, and during all said time expended more or less money in keeping the road in repair and fit for public travel. We think the testimony ample to establish a roadway by prescription, under the decisions of this court in Wasmund v. Harm, 78 P. 777, and Seattle v. Smithers (decided February 20, 1905) 79 P. 615. The appellants allege in their answer that the respondent in this action was the owner of the lands now owned by the appellants on the 7th day of April, 1893, and on that date mortgaged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Smith
...170, 293 P.2d 98, 102, 103(8); Northwest Cities Gas Co. v. Western Fuel Co., Inc., 17 Wash.2d 482, 135 P.2d 867, 869; Van De Vanter v. Flaherty, 37 Wash. 218, 79 P. 794(4); Sinnett v. Werelus, 83 Idaho 514, 365 P.2d 952, 957(16). See again the Sunnybrook Groves, Inc., DeReus, Leverone and T......
-
Northwest Cities Gas Co. v. Western Fuel Co., Inc.
...be acquired by prescription. Wasmund v. Harm, 36 Wash. 170, 78 P. 777; Seattle v. Smithers, 37 Wash. 119, 79 P. 615; Van De Vanter v. Flaherty, 37 Wash. 218, 79 P. 794; Watson v. Board of Commissioners of Adams County, Wash. 662, 80 P. 201; Scheller v. Pierce County, 55 Wash. 298, 104 P. 27......
- Investment Securities Co. v. Adams
-
Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Co.
...which is not limited in the grant itself, * * * is bounded by the line of reasonable enjoyment." Id. (quoting Van De Vanter v. Flaherty, 37 Wash. 218, 79 P. 794, 796 (1905)). The reasoning of Mielke is applicable here. While the easement at issue grants respondent the right to replace the e......