Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1893-03-24
THE CAPITOL SITE.
UtpORT Of ABSTRACrOR HAIGHI
ThCREON.

UtpORr Of hBSTRAC HAlGHT
THEREON.
ih' U'P"Tt ~ In,"rnbic aud s,cry
N'~tig' 81 adverse claim may b,
tt'm"'rd without '">t 10 ih,
S,n,'.
o., Uo,'mor Inns had a complct,
of 'D.i madc uf the title to III,
''pt. site. aul NJ ITaight la,
'mr''d hl+ opinion from which W,
.i, ,- follow.
Do u. "rumn Nj llaighi said
l.t state. rrm,hy Territory of Wash.
u.wu. received It, title to ten acres
ui thr proposed site from Edmund
~''''-t'i eft Olympia. lay bargain
AMI ale i "a dated January Is, lN.,J
aud recorded April ~, lNjS. The
th'n Territory of Washington entered
into po~.r--lun Of the tract. and in
50" the legislative assembly building
VS. erected From that time to the
present the possession OF the Terri.
TORY. now state. has been continuous.
AZ the Time OF his conveyance to
the Territory the grantor, Sylvester
w6s IN possession Of the premises rs a
SETTLER under the donation act, but had
not Yet applied for or received his
patcut. winch was not issued till Nav
,. 1850.
Three years prior to his conveyance
To- the Territory. May IL 1852, he had
given n quit claim deed to one Quincy
\. Brooks. Of an so acre tract that
included the present capitol site. This
decd contained a covenant to convey
10y warranty deed, within 30 days after
the said Sylvester should receive a
patent from the United States. Brooks
executed a similar deed To- one Human
II. Calkins, for n 30-acre tract, EN-
brac!ng the present capitol site, and
Calkins quit claimed the present
capitol site to the Territory January
III. 1870, about the time Sylvester
gave his deed to the Territory. With
in few days prior, however, to exc
cutting his deed to the Territory,
Calklns had conveyed five one-acre
tracts, lying partly or wholly within
the capitol grounds. Some OF these
grantees have quit claimed to the
Territory; others have strengthened
their title by warranty deeds from
sylvester before he received his patent,
or hy quit claims since.
The fact that the possession OF the
State has been open, notorious, contin-
uous, unquestioned, with claim of right
under color Of title and with universal
acquiescence of the public and all
parties interested, does not do away
with the necessity of investigating the
validity of these various conveyances
and determining where they place the
! title.
Where it is established, it gives the
citizen perfect title. 1t can, however,
according to eminent authority, give
no title to sovereign who does not
permit himself to be sued. The
statute of limitation does not begin to
run till an action can he brought.
The commonwealth of Washington,
whether as Territory or as State, has
never suffered itself to be made party
generally to actions, or especially, SO
that claimants to this tract could have
brought the State into court. These
parties, therefore, have been under a
continuous disability, and to them the
statute of limitations has not begun
to run.
This exemption of the State from
suit, though depriving it of the adj
vantage of gaining title by adverse
possession. practically gives it no
protection from attack if its original
title is valuable. Though the State
cannot be sued, its agents and servants
can be, and as the State can hold
possession of real estate as well as do
all other things only through it's
agents and servants, it is subject to
dispossession by the eviction of its
officers and agents at all times unless
its title is without blemish. The
long continued possession of the State
and its devotion to this tract for the
capitol purposes may fairly be deemed
to establish dedication by all in
terested parties of the land to that
purpose. Although at common law
dedications for highway purposes
alone were recognized, in the United
States the doctrine has received
wider application, and dedication may
be for squares, parks and public build.
ings. as we'll as for highways. Inas
much as in this case the dedication
would be implied, and the law is not
we'll defined as TO what period of time
and what character and extent Of use
will establish a dedication by implica-
ton for particular purpose, it will
not do for the State to rely on such a
dedication to reinforce q title other
wise weak.
Mr.. Haight finds that the deed of
Edmund Sylvester and wife to the
State was valid conveyance and his
antecedent transfers void. He con-
cludes:
Assuming that the title of the State
is an equitable one, the holders of the
legal estate are simply trustees, from
whom the State is entitled to convey
ances. The legal title to most OF this
tract is in the legal representatives OF
Edmund Sylvester. All other holders
of title have purchased since the Ter
ritory took possession and built the
so.called capitol. These. therefore,
have had full notice of the rights and
title of the Territory, and hold their
bare legal title simply as trustees for
the State.
A two-acre tractadjOins the original
10-acre tract on the north. This was
conveyed to the Territory by Edmund
Sylvester and his wife by warranty
deed dated April 26, 1858. The legal
title to this tract under the warranty
Injured to the Territory as soon as
Sylvester received the legal title and
that title has passed to the State.
am of the opinion that the State
has an indefeasible legal title to the
two-acre tract last mentioned and an
indefeasible legal or equitable title to
the 10-acre tract; that if the title of
the State is equitable, there is nothing
but the bare legal title without bene-
fetal interest outstanding; the pos.
session of the State and its officers
cannot be interfered with; the State
is entitled to deeds from the holders
of the legal title without further ex-
pense than the cost of the cOnveyances,
and on refusal of such holders to exc
cute the same, they can be compelled
to execute them or their titles may be
appropriated under condemnation pro-