gg STATE LAND LAWS 



SEC. 91 ABUTTER'S RIGHT. 



ownership : Bleakley v. Lake Wash. Mill Co., 65 Wash. 215, distinguishing 

 Denny v. Nor. Pac. R. Co., 19 Wash. 299. 



Only the owner of the legal title to the abutting lands is entitled to this 

 preference right, which does not inure to a vendee, in possession under contract 

 of sale of such lands, with deed in escrow, not delivered until after the expira- 

 tion of the sixty-day period : Book v. Thomas, 61 Wash. 607. 



The legal title to lands sold on execution does not pass to the purchaser to 

 such extent as to entitle him, during the period of redemption, to exercise the 

 preference right: Hays v. Nat'l Bank, 14 Wash. 192. 



The preference right to purchase is severed, and passes to the purchaser of 

 shore land lots which have been included in a plat of the uplands and sold be- 

 fore the adjoining uplands : Shorett v. Signor, 58 Wash. 89. But not if sold 

 after such uplands : Seattle & M. R. Co. v. Carraher, 21 Wash. 491. 



Where the upland owner extended his plat over shore lands belonging to the 

 state, the grantee of the shore land lots does not acquire the right, as an up- 

 land owner, to purchase the same from the state, but his rights rest on the fol- 

 lowing section : idem. 



The owner of lands separated from shore lands only by a street owns the fee 

 of the entire street and has the preference right to purchase the abutting shore 

 lands: idem, and Qifford v. Horton, 54 Wash. 595. 



The abutter's preference right is not affected or conveyed by the grant of an 

 easement for a railway right-of-way extending to or below the line of ordinary 

 high water : Pac. Iron Wks. v. Bryant Lbr. etc. Co., 60 Wash. 502. 



WHEN VESTED : 



The preference right to purchase tide lands did not become vested upon the 

 entry of an order awarding such right to the applicant, which order was not 

 certified to the commissioner as provided in sec. 93, post, and was subsequently 

 reviewed and vacated by the board : Kinnear v. Ross, 74 Wash. 371. 



Under Laws '95, p. 570', sec. 106, repealing prior laws upon the subject of 

 tide lands, but preserving all rights which have been acquired thereunder, the 

 rights of applicants for the purchase of tide lands under the act of 1890, whose 

 applications were pending at the time of the passage of the act of '95, are 

 saved, as such repeal cannot be construed as having reference to vested rights : 

 State ex rel. Meghler v. Forrest, 13 Wash. 268. 



Where a qualified applicant has complied with all the preliminary require- 

 ments of the existing law at the time of his application, which would entitle 

 him to a contract of sale, he has acquired a vested right in such lands, of which 

 he cannot be deprived by a subsequent repeal of the law under which the ap- 

 plication was made : State ex rel. Billings v. Bridges, 22 Wash. 64 ; State ex 

 rel. Wilson v. Ry. Co., 60 Wash. 32. 



But acts granting the preference right may be repealed, and until accepted 

 they do not constitute a contract between the state and the beneficiaries, so 

 that a privilege which has not been exercised may be taken away : Allen v. 

 Forrest, 8 Wash. 700; State ex rel. Wilson v. Grays Harbor etc. R. Co., 60 

 Wash. 32. 



Rights under a defective application, subsequently amended and filed, held 

 to relate back to time when first tendered : Johnson v. Woodworth, 18 Wash. 

 243. 



SEC. 91. CONVEYANCE OF PREFERRED RIGHT. 



When the abutting upland owner has attempted to convey by 

 deed to a bona fide purchaser any portion of the tide or shore 

 lands in front of such uplands, or littoral rights therein, such 

 right to purchase herein given to the upland owner shall be con- 

 strued to belong to such purchaser, or to any person, association 



