City of Seattle v. Abrahamson

Citations

• 109 Wash. 116
• 186 P. 644
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 978

Syllabus

<p>Highways (7) —Establishment—Prescription — Defective Proceedings. Title to a county road was acquired by prescription where the road was ordered and, without being purchased or condemned, was used by the public for thirty years.</p> <p>Same (6-8)—Extent of Highway—Width. Where, at the time a county road was ordered, the law required its width to be sixty feet, title acquired by prescriptive use extends to the full width and is not limited to the ten to fifteen feet actually used by the public.</p> <p>Same (3, 6-8). Where title to a sixty-foot county road, ordered hut not condemned, was acquired by prescription, the use of a narrow roadway winding around stumps and buildings was not an abandonment of the unused portions; and upon condemnation to increase the width to one hundred feet, a property owner is entitled to compensation only for the additional forty feet, notwithstanding the winding way used touched points on the outer line of the additional strip.</p> <p>Trial (24)—Ctjmljlative Evidence. It is largely discretionary to exclude expert evidence on the ground of want of qualification as an expert, to be disturbed only upon abuse of the discretion.</p> <p>Appeal (457, 458)—Review-—Harmless Error. Error in excluding expert evidence is harmless where it would have been accumulative and there was abundant other evidence on the question.</p> <p>Eminent Domain (127)—Damages—Evidence—Admissibility. In condemnation proceedings in which the sole question is the value of the property taken, evidence of damages through interference with the care of property while the road was being constructed is inadmissible when it does not appear that such interference would necessarily follow.</p>