The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-06-12
TIDE LAND CASES.
The Rights of Littoral Proprie-
tors Defined.
FOUR JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.
Purchasers OF Shore Lands Bound by
Limit-Cannot Acquire Better
Title Than Grantor.

nave Just been handed down from the supreme
court, In which the judgments OF the court be-
10" were affirmed The cases were all from
King county, and involved the rights to prop
cry along the shores of Puget sound.
Inc case OF J. Gardner Kenyon appellant, W.
robert hnipe CT al, appellees, was passed upon
uy the court In full, and the cases of J. Gardner
Kenyon, appellant, VS.. Watson c. Squire, ap-
peAee' ). Gardner Kenyon, appellant. vs. Wat
son =. squire ct al, appellees; and that OF
george r. Dearborn, appellant, vs. Peter Moran.
Ct al, appeilecs, were passed upon briefly, the
same issues being involved as in the Knipe case.
ne opinion In the Knipe case was written by
suage John z. Hoyt and concurred in by Judge
Il. " Dunbar and T. ]. Anders, chief JUS
nce- Judge Elrnon Scott concurs in the result.
The opinion 10 as follows:
The discussion in this case has extended over
.s ulo.S range nesrly every question connected
mlsn me subject OF tide or shore lands, and the
tgnss OF riparian or littoral proprietors thereto,
nas been ably breled and argued by counsel for
sne respective parties. Also, the questions
sIoNinR out OF the making and recording OF
,own psats, and the effect of the same, have
been likewise presented. The conclusions to
Mnicn we have come as 10 this second matter
viii make IL unnecessary for US 70 decide the
questions presented by the former And az
they have been lately considereJ by this court
IA cases where decision thereof was necessary,
we snaii mere say nothing in regard thereto.
The facts, so far az they are necessary to the
decision OF this case, are substantially as fol-
lows: Arthur A. Denny made and recorded bis
pist OF an addition 20 the city of Seattle, upon
which certain lots streets and alleys appeared,
ana were sufficiently described to show the in
IGNITION OF the maker OF the plat in regard there
70 II nowhere appeared upon such plat where
the line OF ordinary high tide was; on the con-
trary, so far as could be gathered therefron, all
the territory covered by said plat was upland.
As matter of fact, however. the line OF ordi-
nary high tide SO crossed said plat that portion
OF lots 6 and hereinafter entioned were above
the line OF ordinary high tide, and the remain
1sf OF sqch ioss and al Of lots and together
below such line. After the making
and recording, of said plat, the said
lots and = in block B. Of said II pst ns Atter
which said Denny sold and conveyed lots and
., in said block. and said defendants BY mesne
eeonyeyanees became possessed of the. title
thereby conveyed. Under said last named con-
veyanee from Denny possession was taken and
Improvements made on said lots 5 and s, and the
alley dividing those lots from the lots OF plain
TN was planked over and used as q street several
years before the commencement OF this action.
Under these circumstances we do not think il
lies In the mouth of the plaintiff to object to
sucn Improvements as being an infringement
upon his right as littoral proprietor. The ef-
feet OF the plat made by Mr.. Denny was to separ-
ate the tract thereby covered into distinct lots,
having definite, ascertained boundaries, and
into streets and alleys as marked upon said plat,
and TO vest in the public such streets and alleys
for the purposes therein designated. That such
would De the effect as to such streets and alleys
II the territory covered was upland, and owned
by said Denny,is conceded, but it is eontended
that as ne had no title to the land below the line
purported 70 cover such lands was absolutely
void for any and every purpose.
with this contention we cannot agree 80 far
as MI Denny himself 10 concerned. II is per-
haps true that as to anybody having rights ad-
verse TO him such would be the effect, but il
does not lie in his mouth to say that that which
estopped BY the making Of sucn plat from al
ieging its invalidty and so far as he is concerned
would not be heard to complain of the use by
the public of the territory covered by the streets
and alleys, especially after the same had been
taken possession of and Improvements thereon
made. This being the condition of Mr. Denny,
and described in said plat, we think
that one purchasing lots from him by
reference to said plat could acquire no
one could acquire title independent of or ad-
verse TO that represented by Mr. Denny at the
time OF the making of the plat, this reasoning
would not obtain, but such 10 not the condition
of plaintiff. Whatever title he has he obtained
from Mr.. Denny, and we think it elementary
that under the circumstances of this case he
could get no better title than that of his grantor
deed conveying property by reference to a
plat or map thereof, adopts such plat or map as
part OF such deed, and one purchasing there
lot purchased as they appear on said plat or
map Applying this rule to the case at bar il will
be seen that the plaintiff herein did not purchase
lots bounded by tide water, but those bounded
by definite and defined line 10
feet from the front of said lots so that the lots
he purchased were bounded and concluded on
the one side by Front street, and on the other
side by the alley next westerly thereof, and we
think he is esropped by such fact from claiming
any rights beyond such boundaries as against
the rights of the public in said alley, and of
those in possession OF the lots beyond such alley
Unaided by such plat his deed is uncertain and
void; aided by it 1t becomes valid deed, but of
a lot with definite boundaries, and he must be
bound thereby.
1t follows that the plaintiff is not entitled to
the relief prayed for, and the decision of the
IL is so ordered