Skip to main content
· 4/23/1904

Waring v. Loomis

Citations

  • 35 Wash. 85
  • 76 P. 510
  • 1904 Wash. LEXIS 417

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Construction—Agreement Between Tenants in Common. Where L and W were in joint possession of government land, and enter into an agreement defining their interests as owners of undivided halves, and whereby L agrees to hold possession as trustee in the interest of both, paying certain rent, and agrees to pay W $214 “as his part of the expense of erecting the dwelling” thereon, the natural import of the language is that L was paying the sum mentioned as L’s part of the cost, and not that he was buying W’s half interest therein.</p> <p>Public Lands — Possessory Right of Settlers as Consideration for Contract — Sufficiency. Parties who have entered upon government land in good faith with the intent to lawfully acquire title to the property at some future time, are not trespassers, and may contract with reference to their right of possession, which is a sufficient consideration for mutual agreements respecting the same.</p> <p>Same — Contracts Respecting Possession of — Description of Unstjbveyed Lands — Sufficiency. A contract between parties in possession of unsurveyed public land sufficiently describes the premises, as between the parties, by referring to it as upon a certain creek and in their possession, where it was bounded by fences and the contour of certain bluffs, which formed a natural fence for a portion of the property.</p> <p>Public Lands — Contract to Acquire Title foe Another— Validity — Fraud on Government — Complaint Showing no Intent to Violate Laws of United States, A contract between parties in the possession of government land, referred to as a “ranch,” whereby one was to obtain a patent, if possible, and hold a half interest in trust, is not necessarily void as a fraud upon the United States, since there are various ways in which title can be secured to government land, even if agricultural in character, not inconsistent with a contract of that kind, and the presumption is that a lawful way was contemplated, especially where the compl

Judges: Fullerton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.