The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-06-26
TITLE TO PATENTED TIDE LAND
Important Supreme Court Decision in
the Terry Case-Its Effects.

the Terry Case-Its Effects.
| The decision of the supreme court in the
| case of the Terry heirs VS.. Jones, which
| was briefly announced in dispatch from
| Olympia, is one of the most important in
| the history of the state, as it settles the
title to the most valuable part OF the tide
| lands in this and other cities.
The property in question was a part of
900 acres comprising the west half of May
nard's donation claim, which was sold to
Charles Terry. As the surveyors, contrary
to custom, surveyed to half tide land, con-
shutting that the meander line, large
part of the land patented to Maynard and
sold by him to Terry was tide land. After
Terry's death his executors plated part OF
| the property, and the lots in controversy
in the suit were in Terry's fifth addition.
They are below the high tide land but
| within the neander line and are within the
calls of the patent. In December 1888,
the defendant. Jones, entered upon the
property, drove piles and erected build
ing and wharf. In 1880 the Terry heirs
Mrs. J. G. Scurry, Mrs. G. &. Kittinger
ami Ed l.. Terry-who were the owners
| under the will, began an action in eject
ment against Jones.
The basis OF Jones' claim. which was
maintained by t. NJ. Hall, was the decis-
ion of the United States supreme court in
lS44 that the United States had no power
to atent land beyond high tide line, and
that all land beyond that line belonged to
| the states, or, in the case of the terri
tories, was held in trust for the future
states TO he formed out of them. Thus
maintaining the states right TO dispose of
the land, he further contended that he
was in actual possession before the pass
age of the act Of the state legislature of
March. 1890, giving To persons III posses
sion of tide lands the first right TO buy
them from the state at the appraised
value. He urged that, as the land vas be-
yond high tide line. it belonged to the
state and not TO the plaintiffs. On trial in
the superior court. before Judge Humes.
non-suit was granted on motion OF the de-
PENDANT, and, on judgment dismissing the
case, the Plaintiffs appealed to the SUI
preme court.
The supreme court, in reversing the de-
cision of the lower court held that under
the provisions of section , of article Il, of
! the state constitution. the state had dis
claimed al interest in and TO the tide and
overlooked lands which had been patented
by the United States, that the lots in
question. being within the limits of May
nard's patent, came under the provision,
and that the effect of that provision was 10
vest IN the grantees Of Maynard the entire
title 70 the land. This was the claim Sc.
up ~ (. (. Hughes, of Hughes, Hastings
& Stedman. who represented the plaintiff.
The decision in effect declares the states
disclaimer 10 the patented tide lands 10 be
quit claim from the state 10 the paten;ee
ami his grantee.
This decision settles the title TO the bulk
Of the valuable water front property in
this city, for strip varying in width from
half a block 20 4 block and half between
the high tide and the half tide lines is
patented tide land. This strip extends