The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-09-29
SCHOOL LAND IMPROVEMENT.

SCHOOL LAND IMPROVEMENT
celebrated Test Gaze Agsfa % Trial
sassresstnx fsists Tnveived.
ihe case Of p. 8. Wilkes vs. Griffith
Davies. involving the Ownership Of inn
pfovements on school lands. was on trial
yesssrday before Judgs OSBORN. This casa
nas already been heard Q number Of tisnss
ana vas lately sent back 90 the superior
court from the supreme court.
"Akes. the plaintiff. was counry CON-
missioner undsr the territory, and during
TIE years just previous 20 the sarntsslon
OF the state He had . lease from the
county commissioners for the soath YES,
quarter OF section l6, township a north.
range east. and one Habenichs had a
lease Tor the northwest quarter OF the
same section. In July. 1880, the county
com nissicners, acting under the state
law Tor the appraisement and sale OF
school lands, went out 70 section is. which
lies just on the other aide Of Lake Wash
ingfon. and made the appraissmsn.s Of
the land and also Of such improvements
As they found there made by occupants.
lney appraised Wilkes improvements At
300 and reported them as being on the
soathSess quarter Of the section. Thi,
appraissraent and report were adopted
and confirmed By the state school
land commission They reported also
mat there were no Improvements on the
northwest quarter Of the section. The re-
port and appraisement being confirmed.
the state school land comm issson ordered
the land sold. and ut the sale L. 8. J.
Hunt. acting for Griffith Davies. bought
the south bali OF south vest quarter, north
west quarter of the section, and also the
north half OF northwest quarter. south
west quarter. comprising two twenty-acre
tracts, separated by the middle line Of the
section running east aud west Mr..
Davies paid the appraised value Of the i'm
provements on these tracts according TO
the report OF the board Of county CON-
missioner, but Wilkes demanded $50
more. claiming that the county commits
sioners had failed and refused to appraise
his improvements on tho north twenty
acre tract. on which. rs he claimed, his
house, and barn and garden and other
improvements were situated, and for
which. he said. $500 was reasons able COM
pensation and mist DO paid in addition.
The commissioners deny that they
failed or refused TO appraise any of Wilkes
improvements. They say that they valued
all his improvements on the section at
5000. and that he has already received that
sum: and the present suit is being tried
before jury IN Judge 0sborn's court to
dstermine the right of Wilkes to payment
for any further improvements.
The history Of the litigation over these
Improvements Is interesting. Wilkes
brought his suit originally against l.. s. ].
Hunt, Griffith Davies. =. A. Twichsll and
the county com missioners to enioin them
from carrying out the terms Of sale of the
north twenty-sere tract, on the ground
that the improvements made thereon had
not been paid for. In 1891 Judge Liehten-
berg denied the injunction, and on appeal
the supreme court sustained his decision,
holding that the plaintiff had an adequate
remedy a, law by an action for the value
Of his improvements. Wilkes then began
the present suit to recover the alleged
value Of his Improvements.
Postmaster Davies, now the sole defend
ant. answered. making a complete denial
of Wilkes claim ana alleging that the
plaintiff had been fully paid for all the
improvements he had made on the section.
In February, 1893. the case was tried be-
lection to the validity OF the complaint on
the ground that 10 vas alleged that the
state school land commission had con-
firned the report and appraisement of tho
county commissioners. showing that no
improvements a. all bad been made on the
north swenty-acre tract. but that all of
Wilkes improvement were on the south
twsnty-scre tract; and, as the state school
L.. a al fr4tx al
created for the purpose of determining
those facts, the matter was res adjadicata.
Judge Osborn rendered his decision, dis
missing the suit.
From that decision. however, Wilkes
shortly afterward again appealed to the
supreme court and on that appeal the
supreme court. In January. 1884. rendered
its opinion, referring TO Its former decision
in Wilkes vs.. Hunt ct al. in the following
language:
I'm consideration Of the importance of
this statute in its effect upon the public.
and Of the doubt that is at present in the
minds of the court, as 10 whether the
construction placed upon u in Wilkes vs..
Hunt was the proper construction, we
will not pass upon that question now, nor
consider ourselves bound by it In any
inaependent cases. but having 90 construed
the statute IN case IN whlch tne ldsnttcai
psrtser to this action were the parties ia
interest and the identical property vas
involved, so far as this case Is concerned,
ws feel ourselves bound by the decision
therein rendered and by the opinion
therein expressed"
For this reason the higher court reversed
the decision of Judge Osborn and sent the
cause back 10 be tried by jury The trial
will probably be concluded on Monday.
In his testimony yesterday Wilkes adj
misted that he had had the lease Of the
northwest quarter of the section made out
10 Habenicht because Wilkes was n
county commissioner. and he did not
think IL would look right 10 take lease
in his own name. bat that be and Hsb-
.nlcht were partners. and thai Haseniehi
agreed that Wilkes should havs the vaius
Of all the Improvements ~hea the lands
we're sold.
- ~ al