Windsor v. Bourcier

Decision Date03 August 1944
Docket Number29332.
Citation21 Wn.2d 313,150 P.2d 717
PartiesWINDSOR et ux. v. BOURCIER et ux.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 2.

Action by Alvin M. Windsor and Betty Windsor, his wife, against W J. Bourcier and Jane Doe Bourcier, his wife, to quiet title to land and for trespass. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.


Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Donald A. McDonald, judge.

Teresa I. Masters and E. P. Whiting, both of Seattle, for appellants.

Leon L Wolfstone, of Seattle, for respondents.

MALLERY Justice.

Plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title to land and for trespass. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

The appellants are the owners of tract 92 as shown on the unrecorded plat of Angle Lake Shore Acres and respondents are the owners of tract 91 adjoining it on the north. A boundary line dispute arose between them in the spring of 1942, which culminated in the removal of a certain cedar tree, shrubs and concrete by appellants from the land claimed by respondents, who thereupon brought this action.

The theory upon which respondents went to trial was that the boundary line claimed by them was established and marked by survey stakes in 1926 by a common grantor, and that later it was agreed by the adjoining owners, who were the respective grantors of the parties to this action, that a certain cedar tree was on the line and that an electric power pole was placed on the location of the end stake next to the road, and that the line would still be fixed by them after the stakes were gone.

The land was originally surveyed and staked by one H. M. Love. The plat of the land was not recorded and conveyances of the tracts were made by metes and bounds descriptions. The Jelters were the original purchasers of the respondents' tract 91 and the Eckerns of appellants' tract 92. They bought from a common grantor and according to the surveyed common boundary, the original survey stakes being then still in place. They noticed that a certain cedar tree was on the line. The stake at the other end, near the road was later removed and an electric power pole was erected on its location. They both treated the line fixed by the cedar tree and the pole as the true line, and both sold to their grantees with reference to the line so marked. The appellants, who had been tenants of the property two years Before purchasing it, had had these markers pointed out as fixing the true line.

The court found the true line to be fixed by the center of the pole and the center of the cedar tree stump.

Appellants contend that the court erred in admitting testimony and in making findings of fact and conclusions of law. The testifimony objected to was (1) that of Mr. Eckern and Mr. Jelter relating to an agreement as to the location and fixing of the common boundary by the pole and cedar tree, (2) testimony as to representations made to respondents as to the location of the true boundary line, (3) testimony as to the location of improvements placed by respondents on their own property, and (4) the testimony of respondents' witnesses as to where they believed the line to be. The findings of fact and conclusions of law had to do with the establishment of the true line as fixed by the pole and the cedar stump.

All of appellants' contentions touching the invalidity of conveyances by parol may be conceded as sound, but they are inapplicable in view of the court's finding that the true line was demarked by the pole and the cedar tree stump. It is true that a definite boundary, whose location is fixed and known to the parties, cannot be changed by a parol agreement. A parol agreement between owners of adjoining land, which has been partitioned between them, that they will disregard the boundary fixed by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Pendergrast v. Matichuk
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 15, 2016
    ...Kay Corp. v. Anderson, 72 Wash.2d 879, 436 P.2d 459 (1967) ; Atwell v. Olson, 30 Wash.2d 179, 190 P.2d 783 (1948) ; Windsor v. Bourcier, 21 Wash.2d 313, 150 P.2d 717 (1944) ; Angell v. Hadley , 33 Wash.2d 837, 207 P.2d 191 (1949) ; Martin v. Hobbs, 44 Wash.2d 787, 270 P.2d 1067 (1954). But ......
  • Page v. Department of Labor and Industries
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 7, 1958
    ...Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wash.2d 631, 649, 134 P.2d 444, quoting text of American Jurisprudence; Windsor v. Bourcier, 21 Wash.2d 313, 150 P.2d 717; Gordon v. Bartell, 182 Wash. 268, 46 P.2d Certain it is, nevertheless, that in the trial of personal injury actions, this cour......
  • Campbell v. Weisbrod
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1952
    ...173 Cal. 561, 160 P. 833; Schlender v. Maretoli, 140 Kan. 533, 37 P.2d 993; Baker v. Jones, 141 Kan. 240, 40 P.2d 346; Windsor v. Bourcier, 21 Wash.2d 313, 150 P.2d 717; Hirt v. Entus, supra. The fundamental principle underlying all of the rules of construction of deeds, as well as all othe......
  • Chandler v. Kuhlman
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • January 4, 2011
    ... ... Atwell v. Olson, 30 ... Wn.2d 179, 184, 190 P.2d 783 (1948); see Strom, 27 ... Wn.2d at 481; Windsor v. Bourcier, 21 Wn.2d 313, ... 315-16, 150 P.2d 717 (1944) ... Drawing ... from these rules, uniformly applied in a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT