Worthy Creek Shingle Co. v. Anderson
Citations
- 116 Wash. 472
- 199 P. 756
- 1921 Wash. LEXIS 951
Syllabus
<p>Estoppel (46, 54)—Public Way—Acquiescence in Use—Evidence—Sufficiency, In an action to prevent defendants’ interference with plaintiff’s use of a roadway over the land of defendants on the ground they were estopped by conduct to deny the use of the road to plaintiff, held that the evidence was insufficient to support plaintiff’s cause of action.</p> <p>Trespass (15, 16)—Damages to Real Property—Evidence—Sufficiency. A judgment for damages for trespass was unwarranted, where it appeared that defendant, in making use of a private roadway over plaintiff’s land for which it paid a rental, was compelled to make a slight detour because the roadway had been partially destroyed in blasting stumps and rocks.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that both of the 1892 revisions to section 790.19 indicated a legislative objective to punish acts that endanger the lives of people who may be on the locomotive or in the car
- finding that both of the 1892 revisions to section 790.19 indicated a legislative objective to punish acts that endanger the lives of people who may be on the locomotive or in the car
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mitchell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.