Roe v. Walsh

Citations

• 76 Wash. 148
• 135 P. 1031
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1797

Syllabus

<p>Boundaries — Agreed Location — Possession and Improvements— Estoppel. Where the owner of two lots, by an erroneous survey, located the dividing line 21.6 inches from its true location, and with reference thereto built a flat on one of the lots, extending the eaves and a sidewalk to a side entrance over and upon the 21.6 inch strip of the other lot, and conveyed the lot and improvements believing and representing that the survey located the true dividing line, he and those claiming under him are estopped to assert title to the strip, in the possession of innocent purchasers.</p> <p>Easements — Appurtenances—Ways oe Necessity. The fact that the owner of two lots, before their sale to different parties, in constructing buildings thereon left an alleyway seven feet wide located entirely on one of the lots and between the improvements and sidewalks leading to the rear, which alleyway provided the only means of access to the rear for teams and heavy vehicles, does not show an intent to create an easement for a passageway to the rear, passing as an appurtenance on a sale of the lot adjoining, especially where there was another way left 42 inches wide on the lot sold, and the use of teams and heavy vehicles did not appear to he an absolute necessity to the lot sold.</p> <p>Same — Axe and Light. An implied easement for air and light is not shown by the fact that the owner of two lots left a space of several feet between buildings and erected a building with windows and an entrance facing the dividing line; especially where the house stood back from the line far enough to admit of entering from the side.</p>