Hendrickson v. Sund

Citations

• 105 Wash. 406
• 177 P. 808
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 577

Syllabus

<p>Easements—Obstructions—Actions—Inconsistent Causes. In an action to establish and restrain the obstruction of a private way, an allegation showing plaintiff entitled to a right of way of necessity is not inconsistent with his claim of a right of way by prescription, and it was not error to refuse to require the plaintiff to elect between his two causes of action, where all the facts alleged showed he was relying on his prescriptive right and he did not seek to condemn a right of way of necessity.</p> <p>Appeal (457)—Review — Harmless Error — Exclusion oe Evidence. In an action to restrain the obstruction of a private way by prescription, the exclusion of a complaint in a former action by defendant showing he originally claimed a public way is not reversible error, where there was no dispute in the evidence as to that question.</p> <p>Easements (5-7)—Prescriptive Right — Exclusive and Adverse Use. Where the owner of land acquiesced in the construction of a road across it for the indefinite use of a neighbor, who used it for the necessary period, he acquired a prescriptive right, notwithstanding his use was not exclusive and the road was used by the owner and others; and his hostile or adverse use is sufficiently shown where such use was continuous for a period of thirty years during which time money was expended in repairs and building bridges with no objection by the owner.</p>