Olson Land Co. v. City of Seattle

Citations

• 76 Wash. 142
• 136 P. 118
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1796

Syllabus

<p>Dedication — Plats — Intent — Parol Evidence — Admissibility. Under the rule that a recorded plat cannot be contradicted or impeached by parol, it is inadmissible to show by the evidence of the dedicators that they did not intend to dedicate a portion of the street included within its boundaries as shown on the plat, which plainly extended an irregular street to the water’s edge at the point in question.</p> <p>Same — Vacation—Nonuser. Where a street had been opened and used, the fact that a portion of it, a steep declivity of irregular shape, evidently intended to give access to the water at that point, had never been used as a street, does not vacate such portion by nonuser, under Ballinger’s Code, § 3803, providing for the automatic vacation of streets that had never been opened or used by the public.</p> <p>Dedication — Plat—Ambiguity. The fact that a short irregular street extending to the water’s edge, plainly marked on the plat and included in the street, was not named, and that there were additional dotted lines (evidently extensions of some other lines) does not create an ambiguity as to the intent of the dedicators to dedicate a street, so as to admit of oral evidence of their intention.</p> <p>Gose and Chadwick, JJ., dissent.</p>