Cook v. Hensler

Citations

• 57 Wash. 392
• 107 P. 178
• 1910 Wash. LEXIS 764

Syllabus

<p>Deeds — Intent of Grantor — Evidence—Issues and Proof. The plaintiff cannot complain of the admission of- evidence of the intent of the grantor as to the lands sought to be conveyed' by a deed, where the complaint did not rely upon the description, but -tendered an issue as to the intent, which was met by the answer.</p> <p>Dedication — -Title—Public Lands — Tide Lands — Plats. Where an upland owner’s plat included abutting tide lands belonging to and afterwards platted by the state, the portion of the plat extending over the tide lands is void.</p> <p>Evidence — Deeds — Ambiguity — Intent — Extrinsic Evidence. Where a deed granted blocks and lots designated in an upland plat which overlapped tide lands belonging to and afterwards platted by the state, there is a doubt or ambiguity in the deed as to the grantor’s intent to include the tide land portion of the blocks and lots mentioned; since the upland plat was void as to such portions; and extrinsic evidence of the circumstances is admissible to show the intent.</p> <p>Deeds — Construction — Lands Conveyed — Intent — Evidence— Sufficiency. The evidence is sufficient to establish that a deed of certain blocks and lots in an upland plat, which overlapped tide lands belonging to the state at the time the plat was filed, was intended to convey only the upland portion of the overlapping blocks and lots mentioned, which was the only legal portion of the plat when filed, where it appears that the grantor had also acquired title to the tide lands from the state, that the deed made no mention of the overlapping tide lands as designated in the state tide land plat, and excluded the grantor’s other lots and blocks of the upland plat which were wholly tide lands, that the tide land plat had been filed nine years, and the grantor and grantee testified that it was the intention to convey only the uplands.</p> <p>Rudkin, C. J., Chadwick, and Fuulekton, JJ., dissenting.</p>