990459

ReadAboutContentsHelp
E. A. Doud filed for damages to his building on Washington Street between Second and Third which resulted from a fire on 9 February 1884. He had no insurance, he said, because he was unable to obtain coverage for his building "on account of it's proximity to Chinese quarters." The building was torn down "by employees of the City during said fire with the intent to check the spread of the fire." Doud stated there was no need to tear the building down because the fire never reached the building. Doud's request for reimbursement was denied. See full description in Digital Collections

Pages

1
Indexed

1

Denied

PETITION OF E. A. Doud

For damages for building destroyed at fire

By Common Council.

188_

Clerk.

FILED, FEB 14 1884

Last edit 9 months ago by Seattle Municipal Archives
2
Indexed

2

Petition of E. A. Doud for Damages or Pay for Building Destroyed on the 9th of Februrary 1884.

Last edit 9 months ago by Seattle Municipal Archives
3
Indexed

3

To his Excellency the Mayor and the Honorable - the Common Counsel of the City of Seattle.

Your Petitioner a citizen of Seattle represents unto your honorable body that prior to the late fire on the morning of the ninth of February 1884 on Washington Street between Second and Third Streets that your petitioner was the owner and in the possession of a building on south Second Street used by him as a saddle and harness shop - that its dimensions were fourteen by twenty four feet - that it was of the value of three hundred dollars.

Your Petitioner says that said building was not insured - that he was unable to insure the same on account of its proximity to Chinese quarters. Your petitioner says that said building was entirely torn down by the agents and employees of the City during said

Last edit 9 months ago by Seattle Municipal Archives
4
Complete

4

fire with the intent to check the spread of said fire - that said action was not necessary by said agents and employees of said city, but believed by them to be necessary when said building was thus torn down - that the fire did not extend to said building but was under control before it reached your petitioner's said building

Your Petitioner is informed by his Counsel and believes said information to be correct that if said building had been insured he could not have collected the insurance on its destruction because said destruction was not necessary to check said fire although he has no doubt that the Agents and employees of the City believed at the time that its destruction was necessary.

Last edit 9 months ago by Seattle Municipal Archives
5
Indexed

5

Your Petitioner says that he is a poor man - that he has a lease of the ground heretofore occupied by the destroyed building - that he owned said building - and that he is unable to rebuild, and as the destruction of his property was not necessary to check the fire he appeals to your sense of justice and equity for the payment to him of the value of said building or of such portion thereof as may be deemed just and equitable.

E. A. Doud

Feb 14th 1884

Last edit 9 months ago by Seattle Municipal Archives
Displaying all 5 pages