Meacham v. City of Seattle

Citations

• 45 Wash. 380
• 88 P. 628
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 476

Syllabus

<p>Dedication — Plats ■— Cubing Defects — By Subsequent Deed. Defects in a town plat, in that it was not acknowledged by the wife and failed to designate the length of the lots or locate the land, are cured by a subsequent deed of dedication remedying the defects.</p> <p>Same — Marking on Ground — Evidence. The recitation in a town plat that the tract was “laid out” is sufficient evidence that the same was marked upon the ground, in the absence of other evidence. ■</p> <p>Same — Validity—Title Acquired Subsequently. A town plat is not invalid by reason of the fact that the tract was in a donation claim, title to which was in the government, where the parties were in possession and subsequently acquired title from the government.</p> <p>Same — Ratification. The sale of lots according to a town plat and conveyances by the dedicators, constitutes a ratification of the plat.</p> <p>Same — Acceptance—Necessity. In 1869, acceptance of a plat by a city or town was not necessary.</p> <p>Same — Acceptance—Sufficiency. The recording of a town plat in a plat book “Per order of county comrs,” indicates an acceptance of the plat by the proper authorities.</p> <p>Same — Description—Inclusion of Streets. Where a town plat indicates a street on its north boundary, which it recognizes as such, it should be construed to include such street, where the tract of land platted' is not described, and the land in the street belonged to the dedicators, notwithstanding that subsequently a deed of dedication, made for the purpose of curing certain defects, described the north boundary of the tract as the south line of such street; inasmuch as the evident intent of the deed of dedication was to confirm, and not to modify, the original plat.</p>