State ex rel. Patterson v. Superior Court

Citations

• 102 Wash. 331

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain—Purposes—“Docks.” Rem. Code, § 8740, empowering a railway company to condemn lands for “docks” and warehouses, authorizes the condemnation of sufficient ground for excavating a slip or waterway adjoining a proposed wharf; “dock” meaning an artificial basin for vessels or the space between two adjoining piers or wharves.</p> <p>Same—“Necessity”—Evidence—Sufficiency. A reasonable “necessity” within Rem. Code, § 925, is shown for the condemnation for a dock by a railroad company, where it appears that its business has grown to an extent requiring the facilities, and that still greater facilities will be required, although the company owns other property suitable, but less convenient, for the purpose which would not answer all the purposes sought.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Streets — Vacation — Tide Lands — Statutes. Under Rem. Code, § 7842, providing that the property within the limits of a vacated street shall revert to the abutting owners, one-half to each, where a vacated street intersected the land platted diagonally, forming triangular shaped lots, the abutting owner’s lines should be extended in straight lines to the center of the vacated street; and the same rule applies whether the lots be tide lands or uplands.</p> <p>Eminent Domain—Petition—Description op Lands—Sufficiency. In condemnation proceedings which include portions of a vacated street that had reverted to abutting owners, a petition is insufficient where it contains only a general description of all the abutter’s interests in the vacated street, in view of Rem. Code, § 921, providing that the property sought to be condemned must be described with reasonable certainty.</p>