The Ladd Estate Fights to Keep the Tide-Land Mapmakers Off Its Riverfront

An application by Dexter Horton & Co., bankers, and the trustees of the Ladd estate for an injunction against the tide-land appraisers and state land commissioners — to restrain them from filing supplemental tide-land plats between the meander lines — was filed in the superior court yesterday. The plaintiffs include W. J. Wadleigh, Annie Wadleigh, Edward D. Phelps and wife, N. H. Latimer, Caroline A. Ladd, William M. Ladd, Charles E. Ladd, Helen Corbett and others as trustees of the estate of William S. Ladd, deceased. The complaint sets forth that Charles P. and Thomas M. Welborn received from the United States certain lands in South Seattle along the Duwamish meander line, and that by conveyances the lands came into the possession of W. S. Ladd. The plaintiffs allege that the tide-land appraisers surveyed and platted portions of the land although vegetation grows on them, making them good natural land; that the line of vegetation extends to and ceases approximately at the meander line, and that the meander line throughout the greater part of its course is approximately identical with the well-defined banks of the Duwamish River. The lands, it is alleged, have been diked, reclaimed and were in the possession of W. S. Ladd, his grantors and the plaintiffs for many years. The plaintiffs are informed and believe that the defendants propose to exhibit plats made by the tide-land appraisers; that the board of state land commissioners will exhibit the plats as public records and cause notice to be given that they are complete and subject to inspection by persons having preference rights who desire to file objections; and that they will proceed to a sale for the dedication of streets and alleys. Such action, they complain, creates a cloud on their title. They ask for an order restraining the defendants from filing or exhibiting any maps or plats and from further platting or advertising the same for sale, and for a perpetual injunction. A temporary restraining order was issued, and the defendants were cited to appear in court at 10 o'clock May 27 to show cause why a perpetual injunction should not be granted.