The Unfinished Business of the Great Fire
Months after the Seattle Great Fire of 1889, local businesses and residents were still embroiled in legal battles over destroyed property and forced evictions from the ruins.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Mary McKinnon has brought suit against the Columbia Railroad Company to recover damages for breach of contract. She alleges that on May 24, 1889, she leased certain premises on Main Street from the company and immediately thereafter constructed a building thereon, which was destroyed by the fire of June 6. She then commenced to rebuild, but on June 18, the defendant company forcibly entered upon the premises, ejected her, and tore down the partially completed building. She asks for damages for the lumber and labor destroyed, for $500 for the value and occupation of the premises over and above the rent agreed upon, for $1,000 for incidental damages, and for the loss of the building.
“She alleges that... the defendant company forcibly entered upon the premises, ejected her, and tore down the partially completed building.”
This case offers a glimpse into the chaotic displacement that followed the 1889 Great Fire. Much like the modern struggle over development and property rights in a rapidly densifying Seattle, this story highlights how the aftermath of a catastrophe often triggers intense legal warfare between property owners and tenants over who bears the cost of rebuilding the city.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.