The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-12-22
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
An Important Interpretation OF the
Tide Land Laws.

OLYMPIA. Dec. 2l.-Special.-An opinion
affirming the decision of the lower court
was filed today in the case Of the state Of
Washington ex rel. j. q. Megler. appel
liant. vs. w. r. Forrest, commissioner Of
public lands, respondent. an action involv-
ing the construction OF the tide land acts
OF 1890 and 1895, respectively. on March
So 1885, relator made application TO pur-
chase certain tide lands IN Wahkiakum
county. The application was rejected by
the commissioner for the reason that the
map which relator had furnished did not
comply with the law. On April % follow
ing relator again made application, and
the second application was rejected, the
commissioner insisting that the map did
not furnish the necessary information as
10 the portions of land described that had
not been sold. on April q reiator made
affidavit in support OF a motion for "a writ
of mandamus, TO which respondent de-
INJURED and was overruled: an alternative
writ was issued 10 which respondent de-
INJURED and was again oVcrruleo, where
upon he answered. To this answer appel
liant demurred. which was oyerruled \
reply was filed and the case went TO trial.
when a peremptory writ was denied. il
was urged by respondent that the dcmur-
rer 20 the affidavit was well taken. because
Il did not appear that the survey was con-
nectcd with and that the plat showed two
or more connections with the United
States surveys. This the supreme court
regards as technical. because when the
commissioner was presented with a certi-
fed plat OF survey and field notes. the law
was sufficiently complied With 10 pat re-
spoudent upon his denial as TO whether the
survey and notes did show the connections
required by law. Regarding the cain that
the survey was Incorrect and indefinite.
the court regards as question OF fact. to
he determined by the commissioner and
~ Nit he ~ ha 70,
view. The commissioner further claimed
that portion OF the land embraced In re-
lotor's plat was sold bv order OF tho land
commissioners on April {. 1895. 4 new law
WAS approved March 26. 1898, providing Tor
the sale OF tide lands which went into
effect Immediately. The commissioner.
acting under the old law adver-
Used for bids prior to the pass
age OF tho new one, and AT the time the
rvl3toT had made his application OF April
- bids had been furnished by applicants
under he old law. aud before REALTORS ar
pHcation such bids had been approved.
Appellant contends Gl that the law Of lSa5
repealed all the provisions OF the law OF
iNn. and that all rights under the old law
had been swept away o. that there was
no provision I'm the law Of 1880 for the sale
81 lands Of the character described IN re-
lators application.
The supreme court Is SntIsfaf that rcitN-
sustained. The ncS law contained a clause
preserving all rights which have been ac-
quired" Purchasers making arOlicatfAp
under The old law. going To The expense 81
survey aD9 other necessary farua{itias
possessed such rights as the new law
aimed % preserve y was nor Vested
rights, because vested rights could nos be
disturbed IN any event
fttEardlug the second contention tra
ortnlou says; The first section OF The act
az $50 IS comprehensive and provides thar
al shore and tide lands shall Re anpr9Ise5
ara sold hy the commissioner. Il fhe Iao4s
in question are tide lands. which - ,4nsfs-
pHtei t'sey are ouihra -cd within >fl,,, 4
81 the at of lS0 and provision is made far
their sale
The lands were legally applied FOR Nv
l0gfl purchasers. ana the application f,r =
"rtt 81 mandate was property denied
Puget sound Machinery Depot. anrsl-
LAM. rs. John R.~ty. respondent: yro-
King county. reversed
johanna @. Martin. appellant VS. 1-r,,,
Mutual Insurance Company. resno-.5e-,.
trou1 Pierce couDty, affirmed.
Sns3Na1 & rs ehstcr. respondents ,e -
]. Traen - 81. appellants. from k,-
county; affirmed ''7