The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-10-04
MRS. SEAVEY WINS At LAST
CITY Must PAY FOR PROPERTY
TAKEN FoR STREET PURPOSES.
Aau9ass0n Over the Widening Of
second Avenae Termimated-The
Court Decides Dispafe That

After litigation extending over nearly two
Years Mrs. Abigail Sea.ey yesterday de-
fedieG Inc citys clam To strip Of Iani
Twelve feef wide and 20 feet long at the
northwest corner Of Secoud avenue and
Pike street az a par, Of Second avenue I'm
der the proceedings taken for the widening
oi Inc thorsughfsre in the summer Of 1859.
In effect Judge Moore before whom Mrs.
ssavsy's maEsiamas case Was tried. held
that the city had by Ito failure to Take ac-
taal possession OF the contested strip OF land
forfeited is right 10 e under the proceed
ings appropriating IL for a public street.
Under the decision the board OF public
works viii be required to issue to Mrs.
Seavey building permit for the erection
OF business block upon the disputed prop
erfy- 1t was the recent refusal Of the board
10 issue the permit that caused Mira Seavey
10 apply 10 the superior court for q writ
OF mandafnus compelling the board to grant
Corporation Counsel Humphrey said last
night that an appeal would probably be
taken. but even II the decision l. allowed to
become final II il not likely that the build
yers having advised her 70 apply for the
permit. Ii is said. principally with view
TO forcing the city TO trial OF It's rights
TO the property for street purposes.
The history OF the case Is rather obscure.
When the cisy's appraisers. years ago. con-
demned twelve feet OF of the east ends
"A. a. 3
addition. they allowed Mrs Seavey s.. 800
damages. This amount Mrs. Seavey never
received from the city, although. as her
attorney. f. F: Blaine stated yesterday. she
would have been entirely satisfied with
the award. Mr. Blaine says that the rea-
son was that the city at no time after the
property was condemned had on hand In
the Improvement fund for the widening OF
the street enough money to pay the dam
ages. 1t was the city's contention that Mrs
Seavey had neglected TO demand her money
At the proper time and thereby forfeited
her claim 10 IL.
For about seven years the matter ran
along as though no condemnation had ever
been made. Mrs. Seavey had obtained no
money and the city had taken no steps TO
put the street through the property. But in
the fall of 1895 Mrs. Seavey opened the
question by applying for a permit to erect
building on the lot facing on Pike street.
II was refused. Then she applied TO the
superior court for Judgment upon The as
sesment OF damages made by the sppras-
ers. She was given judgment for $500
but upon an appeal TO the supreme court
the lower court was reversed.
Then Mrs. Scavey began suit TO quiet
title. This suit was dismissed on the city =
for $3.50 damages for the appropriation Of
her property. In this. also she was unsuc-
cessful: the court granted a Een~suit 30 the
city. The second application for building
permit and the mandamus suit followed
In this fourth suit she has succeeded n es-
tablishing her title.
Attorney Blaine said yesterday that there
had never been any doubt about the out
come in his mind. and that sooner or later
the city was bound 10 lose He considers
the city's action IN Pleading. as he claims
the statute OF limitations against his client
entirely unjust and unwarranted. He be-
lleves the properts' worth far more than
the amount awarded by the appraisers.
The north end of the strip Is covered
| by two dwelling houses belonging 80 Mrs.
| Saavey. The Pike street end is vacant.
| Upon this portion Of the strip the proposed
| brick building may be erected.