Van De Vanter v. Flaherty

Citations

• 37 Wash. 218
• 79 P. 794
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 706

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Notice—Sufficiency. A notice of appeal from a judgment of the superior court, omitting the words, “to the supreme court” is sufficient since there is no other court to which the appeal could he taken.</p> <p>Highways — Right of Way by Prescription — Adjoining Owners — Evidence—Sufficiency. Where it appears that the owners of landlocked premises used a roadway across the lands of an adjoining owner and expended money in keeping it in repair, continually for nearly twenty years without hindrance from any person, a finding of a right of way hy prescription is sustained, and will not he disturbed because of a conflict in the testimony as to the particular roadway actually traveled.</p> <p>Same — Defenses—Conveyance Without Reserving Right. It is no defense to an action to establish a right of way by prescription across the lands of an adjoining owner, that the plaintiff formerly owned the lands subject to the use and mortgaged the same without reserving any right of way, defendants claiming through such mortgage, where, at the time of making the mortgage, the right of way existed in favor of other parties as appurtenant to the lands subsequently acquired by the plaintiff.</p> <p>Same — Defense as Bona Fide Purchaser. In an action to establish a right of way hy prescription across the lands of an adjoining owner, the- defendants cannot claim as bona fide purchasers without notice of the easement, where the evidence warranted a finding that the roadway was well defined and apparent, nor where they had actual notice of it, and of plaintiff’s claims thereto.</p> <p>Same — Location or Roadway — Uncertainty in Decree — Judgment — Departure from Pleadings. In an action to establish a right of way by prescription across the lands of an adjoining owner, the judgment will he reversed and remanded for further evidence as to the location, where the description in the decree is uncertain and a departure from the pleadings, and testimony was not received with a view of lo