(concurring)—Whether or not Mrs. Fender owns the portion of the building which encroaches on the street, depends upon what was conveyed to her in the deed she received from Murphy. The description contained in that statutory-form warranty deed reads as follows:
“That portion of Lots Two (2), Three (3), Four (4), Six (6) and Seven (7) lying northeasterly of Elliott Avenue, Block Thirty-four (34), Plat of an Addition to the City of Seattle, as laid out by A. A. Denny (commonly known as A. A. Denny’s 6th Addition to the City of Seattle), Except portion condemned by the City of Seattle for street purposes under King County Superior Court Cause No. 292884, records of said county.”
The deed makes no reference to buildings or appurtenances. However, the conveyance of land carries with it the buildings and appurtenances unless expressly excluded. In my opinion, the quoted words and figures purport to be nothing but a description of land. In effect, it conveys that portion of the land lying within the boundaries of the entire tract described, except that portion of the land which was condemned by the city. The buildings and appurtenances which passed to Mrs. Fender were therefore only those which are situated on the land conveyed.
*222In order to give this description the meaning ascribed to it by appellant, it would be necessary to read into the description, immediately preceding the exception, the words “together with the buildings and appurtenances situated thereon.” Then the exception, being referenced to the condemnation judgment (which did not include the building)-, would not except the portion of the building in question, but only the land on which it is situated.
But such a provision, whether expressly included or only inferred, normally comes at the end of the entire land description in such an instrument. In the absence of anything in the instrument to indicate a contrary intent, it should be so read here. If so read, then the exception merely marks a land boundary line, and no building or portions thereof included within the excepted area were conveyed to Mrs. Fender.
One further comment, relative to a statement which appears at an earlier point in the majority opinion: The majority refers to “the duties of Denis Murphy with, respect to removing structures from the land acquired by the city.” I am not sure that he had any “duties.” Since it is not necessary to decide the point, I doubt that we should infer that he did.
Donworth, J., concurs with Hamley, J.
April 14, 1953. Petition for rehearing denied.