Legal Opinion

Farrow v. Plancich

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1925No. 19213. Department OnePublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBridges, J.

The real purpose of this action is to settle a dispute as to the dividing line between certain properties.

The respondent is the owner of lot 18, block B, of Sebree’s addition to Olympia. The appellant is the owner of the adjoining lot 17. Both lots are improved. About 15 or 16 years ago, the appellant’s predecessor in ownership (his father) bought lot 17. Before he purchased he had a survey made for the purpose of determining the true dividing line between the lots. This survey fixed what was believed to be the true line. Appellant’s father assisted in the survey and drove a stake (which…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Lamm v. McTigheWashington Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Mullally v. ParksWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Angell v. HadleyWashington Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Beck v. LovelandWashington Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Stewart v. HoffmanWashington Supreme Court · 1964

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

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

Powered by the Exa API