The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-01-05

scHfH~
r Thai szsea1arss have drsTen ard we're
9sssing shea easasred. piles n fsons u sid
boz =. I9saklorns s34itin1 80 FsansEeEs al
sEfsgn 70 lsssy ~ Seattle On garanerrsal ssEeet.
IL rsarxaauge 81 sathysfgF froz tie e0zars0n
coa1e&t 81 fiee e5sg & seattle % extend aid
CsmEerelAE street
& pon thss statement Of fact the court de-
syered tbs following opgnlou, which =
I'D - be she Ezoss exhaustive and COM
PETE s1fsenseaon cf the question ever de-
lfsssd from TIE bench IN Washington:
Ats ease Is an important oae. and the eEses-
alc& lnyElTed aaect oct sloEsk the rights Of TIE
p1fsw - tie acton hat rnay be decisive OF
sa6s1 estes The ease vas fair AMI abr
Assa~ q slae tar. and seyerai propositions ia
r0tse1 snt In the view We take bur one VIII BE
'seHhses Whefhe- she RIPARIAN az iist0rai owner
nss az fsxht beyond the high watsr marx.
Shes ~ are. r9 II he has whether they extsna
= he 1rla water Of = lsots n4y Or OILY 20 the
sAAB enact Or whEtker the hmisEiums Of the
ks@slse frasfe. Company and stock yards AID
VA ~ TIE rziIrpad are distractions,
am hEatf = rights between hIzh-wsfer mark
and where 4endanss are asieRea &c b obsfFuc
tons. or wh sseF between FRAT poinf and to the
wtsfNafa aaailaings % the seattle Dry Doek
torpAils AT Mechanics mIH asp sseh - 20
Ffefeaa TIE eAgeise OF the rights 81 riparian
oNfsFz-sAi the and other questions we pass
y because thes ali aepand upon the primary
question Haeshs or not these plaintiffs are
F1passAa o. hstoFs ownerKr II they are then II
MAJ e neFezsaFy pass upon one or more or
al Of sAs&e queions, bns If nos, il Is an
necessary
To 81 riparian aner the land oxned must
% sonilsuons g aIISS5sse=A upon water Briefly
We VIII cite some the authorities that are
generally apphsahlA All Of the authorities.
without exception, pld that where street
fsasit = a.. Il
40 rights ca the other Ne OF thai street and in
the waters Thzt the ubosE that the abutfing
owner OWLS = % the esfer of tie stFeet--EoG
one intsh beyond
Wha,ae one makes HtsFer Mat Of land with
lots aid hlackS therein 10 3 sold, with streets
eantagiaous and bounding std lots and blocks.
sells according e. the plat, b thereby dedieases
said streets. even without osraal dedication.
the mare act q Plating II ssws his intention.
10. 4 vs. city OF Chicago, Hazard isa. Kent,
81. Dsas ard eases cited aerfia vs. n Y
Central 3. T.. s. y. r.. 10 lRissel Ct al vs..
= !. sseatEAl B T.. g y. r., 81. ND other cases
infgA.l
The plat viii control althoughnat conform.
able Il ths ksAtaEe, though neiter executed,
acknowledged or reoouied. iJans ct al vs.
Johnson. Is Howard 1901 Bank VS.. Ogden,
NaIlsce, ~.
Aud under cur code upon the recoainx Of the
man saeh streets are public highwss Code,
sets. 2S2s z22
Ard the plaintiffs grantors, the hummer
heirs. hy thus selling said blocks affirmed the
p8st saa therefore the plat hal the safe effect
asif made and recorded b. them. iRrokx VS..
1 City ~ Topeka. s Pacific, s9l, and not; in re
Pearl street III Fenn., SIS
And where streets in such MAP or plat I'D in
/ polaf 81 fact no exiSfance except On the ma, or
Fisf syen had not been opeged, and hence,nos
used by the public. they stu must be considSsd
- palsiie highways. People vs. tx Rel. Bats
" Ch9kcft. 81 \. T. 5i2; Hull rs. Boom Co, "a
Northwestern 9I7 Hoboken l. d /. Co VS.. MayAr
/ etc q HoDoken, IS \. J. Law 81; stetsan v
/ The city Of Bangor, 90 Me- sIs
Tie two latter were cases where the stree
Terminated upon public navigkble water
And where one bays lots or blocks according
/ 20 = utsp or plat streets being shown on suef
/ plat. bat really neither In existence nor open
the purchaser cannot deny the existence of ths
1 street; eanBot even recover compensation upoT
the opening OF the streets by the municipal
suthpriFies 4 lark -. City OF Elizabeth, 81 y
J. Law I9a, 20 \. }, Law IL; City OF Brooklyn
IS y. Y. f7al
And when 30 opened the utmost the abuttins
owaeF can claim 10 the fee 90 the center Of tbs
street. Three Kant co - 3D. Note e.. COS
notes q. and XII, Banks vs.. Ogden. supra Il
Lawyers Cooperative edition aud notes therein
II q street laid out on pla. Is between q lo
or block and river or navigable water on the
other side, and after purchase OF the lot OF block
the vateF line should recede from the street, tbs
dry land between TIE new water mark and tbs
old water mark Originally Rbntiing the street
woHIi not become the property OF the owner oil
said lot or block. Even IL .'aalf the bed OF the
river were 10 become dry land, be would acquire
no right Of private property therein merely b.
virtue OF owning the Lots upon the other side o.
the street They belong TO the proprietor whf
laid ssut ihe land ia lots and blocks or it would
belong 70 the state Allen VS.. Mann. So. iii
81; Melssaia rs stevens. Is Ohio. 81.
Applying then these authorities 80 tho case al
hand, We therefore have the plaintiffs buyine
cerssin blocks In Plummers addition 10 the cts
~ Seattle. these loaS sud blocks could not be
Identified and their DO nndarfes Fixed By tbs
deesi alone, hat Il Was necessary 20 examine aud
refer TO the map or plat hence. the land bought
was necessarily II not specially. hy reference 10
the ssld map OF plat, Aud though Eighth street
In peaBs of fact was Only opened TO hiEh-water
mark. tp.wtt portion ef block l. still the CON
t4nuatiou OF pFolungation thereof was distinctly
marked and lsid out upon the map, the width
thereof given. and hiss been for sone time a
found iu The faaiags OF fact. open aad used hy
the 5ublic, nesrh rms grantor was bo9nd by
the tasp AHd ths sIreess thereon laid cut aad 80
waFe the er4ntces aaa those claiming nndaf
theul AMI the western iime 81 blocks one tive
AMI three being TIE eastern line af safi Eighth
strest TIC pialnti@S bought only TO that line. no
further. and hence have 40 rights beyond said
stsvss. st se3is rpblie schools - Rlsley, II
MAlRee. 81. Allegheny Eity 81. Moogehead Il
Pa, iis rs. Providence Steam Engine Co IS
Prosidenss Steamship Co, T. T. l., CAS-; south
Csreaina Centy1l aw Journal. sol. 9. So
Euayaa sssinss Knipe Was dscided in the dis
trsrt court az the Thar1 4Bdielai district ~ ira
late sEaincnt Chief justice y. A. Jones on Tx
last sUtnosifs, and Il Is decisive 81 the case a
bar
Il Eighth street being the westerly haandaf,
es hceks.t. 2 s was eafiraig en- the uplsnd bof
def3aE 81 aiSh water Inc, amber these aashori
ileN wossId il - QUESTIONED that psafuaas hsa
any Fiahg beyoad said EtsAth street, We think
unt. Aaa me sane principle IA applicable
where Eishth sfseSs IS = continuation OF tbs
gsrssst t1ota hlEh water marx in froat 81 thexe
hios - The plaintiffs Ieesreora, being homma
~ FSEhth street. having uaIsagsFast or title wesa
81 said treet, 10 fasows tAat &aserycaoFs have ng
sgsle, Interest er claim
Fer tae reasons stated above the confi
iiass the following conclusions Of law
fgrs Plaintiffs DEARBORN 7iave 30 Riparian
rights
Ssssaa Taai TIE insssssnass hsve no va,is
tssle. nez arr they tAe csHsFa IL lnr Of bsDs !
s. ~ nss1boFns ssosna kdiiSion. oE Any LOT,
thggs4as
flsls8- pisiullss are nos untitled - sn iugmue
siaa.
Aaa ueu. 60 u8s 4sh asy al Januarv. $50. ln
,auastsoa hefptasere EFsnfea aiseh fgsa Saf easa
i5&ias dismissed wikh Cests.
A uossoe Of appeal 10 the supgenis court
va given. Depending apssa the above lie
cisiaa. an appeai Vas also t&kea ia ths
cases q Dearborn against eioosi 81 a.. aaa
pessstovn against Moran Brothers ri al
wash tai aat Ye4 cone "a trial
FwE mmA-sxw&Txg CAsF.
The sujt az William q uHf - tsh.-g..