Legal Opinion

Doms v. Barrow

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1947No. 30319PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeals, J.

By warranty deed, dated January 12, 1946, plaintiffs F. W. and Mabel L. Doms, husband and wife, received title from Boyd D. and Ruth M. Caudill, his wife, to a tract of land in Kitsap county, Washington, described as:

“The North half of the East quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter, Section 5, Twp 23 North Range 1 East, W. M.”

This five-acre tract was unimproved and covered with second-growth timber, and will be hereinafter referred to as tract A. The deed contains no reference whatever to any improvements on the property.

The warranty deed, above referred to, was issued…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Kyle v. KavanaghMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  2. Crowe v. . LewinNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  3. Barfield v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Richardson v. Taylor Land & Livestock Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Atwood v. McGrathWashington Supreme Court · 1926

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Boteilho v. BoteilhoHawaii Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Wickwire v. McFaddenAlaska Supreme Court · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API