TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Coler v. Center

W. N. Coler, Jr. v. Lewis W. Center

Coler v. Ctr., 112 P. 94 (Wash. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 12, 1910
Docket
No. 9163
Citations
112 P. 9461 Wash. 6941910 Wash. LEXIS 1357
Disposition
Affirmed.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, ■Clifford, J., entered June 13, 1910, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a. trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action of ejectment.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the respondent uhder ■§ 785 of Rem. & Bal. Code, to recover from the appellant the possession of certain lands situated in Pierce county of which the respondent alleged he was the owner in fee, to quiet his title thereto, and to enjoin the defendant’from asserting rights therein, or otherwise interfering with the property. In his complaint the respondent deraigned his title from the government of the United States, showing a complete record title to the property in himself. The appellant in defense pleaded the statute of limitations, alleging that he had been in the open, notorious and exclusive possession of the property under a claim or right for a period of more than ten years next preceding the commencement of the action. The court on the trial,, which was had without the intervention of .a jury, found for the respondent, and entered judgment in his favor. This appeal followed.

There is no serious difference between the parties over the rules of law involved. The questions discussed are principally questions of fact, and these question's, we think, the trial court correctly resolved in favor of the respondent. The respondent’s evidence shows a complete record, title to the property in himself, and we think the appellant failed to show any such open, notorious and continuous possession for the required period as would ripen into a right by adverse possession. It would serve no useful purpose to review the evidence. It is sufficient to say that we have examined it and are satisfied with the conclusions drawn therefrom by the trial judge.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list