Case ID: wash_13/html/0240-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 1906.
    Decided December 16, 1895.]
    Samuel W. Hutchcraft, Respondent, v. William Lutwig et al., Appellants.
    
    DEED—SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION.
    A description of property in a deed as “ all that certain quarter of the east half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 20, marked pink in the sketch hereunto attached, in township 25 north, range 4 east, in King county, containing ten acres, more or less,” is sufficient to describe the premises, although the sketch indicated may be without pink coloring.
    Appeal from Superior Court, King County.—Hon. it. A. Ballinger, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    Action in ejectment by Samuel W. Hutchcraft against William Lutwig, D. P. Metis and the administrator of Edward L. Shannon, deceased, to recover possession of a certain tract of land to which he claimed title through mesne conveyances from one Alexander Gilmore, the admitted owner of the premises in 1869. The deed froni Gilmore to plaintiff’s grantor described the premises as a certain piece of land in King county, Washington Territory, "being all that certain quarter of the east half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 20, marked pink in the sketch hereunto attached, in township No. 25 north, range four east, containing ten acres, more or less.” The sketch upon the certified copy of the deed offered in evidence was without the pink coloring, but was colored in black ink.
    
      Smith & Littell, and Gorham & Gorham, for appellants.
    
    
      W, S. Relfe, and Wm. H. Brinker, for respondent.
   Per Curiam

The respondent, claiming as owner in fee, brought this action against appellant to recover possession of certain real premises, situated in King county. Appellants offered no proof on the trial and make no claim of title, but rely solely upon their possession and the alleged failure of plaintiff to prove title. Appellants admit that one Alexander Gilmore was the owner of the premises in 1869, and it is through him that respondent claims title by virtue of certain mesne conveyances. The question for determination is whether the description contained in a deed from said Gilmore is sufficient to cover the premises in dispute. The lower court found that it was, and we are entirely satisfied that such finding was right, and, no error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.