STATE LAND LAWS 33 



APPEAL. SEC. 22 



sioners shall forthwith give notice in writing to all parties who 

 have appeared in such proceeding of its order or decision. 

 (Laws '01, p. 98, sec. 1; sec. 6616 Rem.-Bal. ; 477 sec. 159 

 Pierce.) 



Former Laws: Laws '95, p. 561, sec. 82; Laws '97, p. 254, sec. 52. 



Appeal from appraisement of tide lands: sec. 324, post. 



Prom appraisement of railroad right-of-way: sec. 220, post. 



From appraisal of tide land improvements: sec. 144, post. 



From award preference right in tide land contest; stay: sees. 93-94, 

 post. 



Limitation of appeal from award right to purchase tide lands: 

 sec. 29, post. 



Board may reconsider acts: sec. 19, ante. 



Cited : 27 Wash. 603 ; 36 Wash. 671 ; 42 Wash. 391-442. 



See 2 Remington's Digest, pp. 2414-2416, sees. 122-126. 



One who waives his preference right to lease by failure to make timely ap- 

 plication cannot prosecute an appeal from an order directing a leasing at public 

 auction : McN aught-Collins Impt. Co. v. Atlantic etc. Co., 36 Wash. 669. 



In the absence of fraud, the courts will not review the decision of matters 

 within the discretion of the state oyster commission : State v. Heuston, 56 

 Wash. 268. 



Mandamus will not lie to compel the board to appraise and sell state lands, 

 their action being wholly discretionary : State ex rel. Bussell v. Bridges, 30 

 Wash. 268 ; McN aught etc. Co. v. Atlantic etc. Co., 36 Wash. 669 ; Powers v. 

 Webster, 47 Wash. 99. 



A private citizen cannot complain that the shore line is erroneously located 

 by the Board of State Land Commissioners unless established upon his uplands : 

 Williams v. Cole, 54 Wash. 110. . 



A private citizen cannot maintain an action to set aside a sale of state land 

 for fraud : Poicers v. Webster, 47 Wash. 99. 



Upon application for mandamus in the supreme court, the claim that a deed 

 has been issued through fraud will be sent to the superior court for trial : State 

 ex rel. Shores v. Ross, 44 Wash. 246. 



An appeal lies from an order cancelling a lease of tide lands, hence no remedy 

 by injunction : Seattle Wharf Co. v. Callvert, 42 Wash. 390. 



No appeal lies from orders of the commissioner : State ex rel. Smith v. Ross, 

 42 Wash. 439. 



An appeal lies from the decision of the board that certain tide lands applied 

 for are not subject to sale : Ilwaco v. Ilwaco Ry. & Nav. Co., 17 Wash. 652. 



Under Laws 1897, p. 254, sec. 52, it was held that where an application for 

 the purchase of tide lands is contested by two other claimants for separate parts 

 thereof, and all the applications are tried before the board as one application, 

 and finding made against the original applicant, such applicant is entitled to 

 bring the matter up for review before the superior court by one appeal as against 

 both contestants : State ex rel. Maylor v. Superior Court, 19 Wash. 198. 



Upon appeal to the superior court from the decision of the Board of Land 

 Commissioners, respecting a contest for the purchase of tide lands, the court 

 should hear the appeal upon its merits, and not dismiss it on the ground that 

 appellant's application was incomplete and did not conform to the law in every 

 particular : Oliver t: Dupee, 16 Wash. 634. 



The fact that an applicant for the purchase of tide lands is a contestant 

 against the first applicant for their purchase does not preclude him from prose- 

 2 



