4 Wash. App. 213 (1971)
A stream was used as the boundary line between the parties' lands. Plaintiffs instituted an action against defendants in which they sought to establish the boundary of their uplands and tidelands.
The trial court resolved the boundaries in plaintiffs' favor, and defendants appealed.
- The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that one creek rather than another was the intended upland boundary.
- The court also concluded that the case had to be remanded so that the trial court could correct its findings to reflect a correct upland boundary.
- The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff to reopen and present additional testimony after both parties had rested or in awarding a new trial on its own motion.
- The court determined that the decision regarding the tidelands dispute, which arose out of an apparent conflict in conveyances by a common grantor, had to be modified because it was not supported by substantial evidence.
The court affirmed the judgment against defendants in part, reversed the judgment in part, modified the tidelands boundary, and remanded plaintiffs' action for correction of the upland boundary and for entry of a decree.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.