14 Wash. 1 | Wash. | 1896
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The complaint in this action shows that the plaintiff was the .owner under a patent from
The appellants cite many cases to sustain their contention, but we think there are none of them in point. We do not question the general rule in this respect,
“The State of Washington disclaims all title in and claim to all tide, swamp, and overflowed lands patented by the United States: Provided, The same is not impeached for fraud.”
This question, we think, was virtually before this court in the case of Scurry v. Jones, 4 Wash. 468 (30 Pac. 726), and there decided adversely to appellants’ contention. This is tide land patented by the United States and it is not impeached for fraud, and no matter whether the meander line or-the body of water along which the meander line runs is the true boundary. The boundaries of this particular tract of land are settled by the grant in the plat and field notes. The land was granted according to the official grant of the survey of such lands, and the plat itself and its notes, lines and descriptions become a part of the grant or deed by which they are conveyed as much as if the description was written out on the face of the deed itself. See Cragin v. Powell, 128 U. S. 691 (9 Sup. Ct. 203). The constitutional convention of this state, with a commendable sense of honor, thought it but simple' justice to disclaim title to all tide lands patented by the United States without regard to the technical right of the general government to convey the same, and there is nothing in the language of the constitution that would indicate that the convention intended to make any distinction between lands which had been patented through the medium of the donation act, and those which had been patented under the pre-emption or commutation acts, or even of private entry. The principle involved in this case, we think, was identical with the principle involved in