Sylvester v. Imhoff, 42449
| Decision Date | 07 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 42449,42449 |
| Citation | 503 P.2d 734,81 Wn.2d 637 |
| Parties | William SYLVESTER and Donna Faye Sylvester, his wife, Respondents, v. Robert IMHOFF and Jane Doe Imhoff, his wife, Appellants, Austin Sylvester and Jane Doe Sylvester, his wife, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
B. E. Kohls, Okanogan, Kelly Hancock, Omak, for appellants.
Nansen & Price, Richard B. Price, Omak, for respondents.
This action involves an easement across the lands of another for the maintenance and operation of a ditch carrying irrigation water.
Appellants (defendants) are the owners of lands in Okanogan County. Respondents (plaintiffs) own lands nearby on which are orchards which require water.
Archibald Martin built the ditch in question over government lands and completed construction not later than 1903. Martin acted under the authority of an 1866 statute now known as Public Lands, 43 U.S.C.A. § 661 (1964), which permitted construction of ditches and canals across lands owned by the United States government. The statute further provided that all patents and homesteads shall be subject to the rights to ditches given by the statute. On October 6, 1903, the State of Washington filed a lieu land list claiming the right to have the subject property transferred to the state in lieu of school lands. On April 15, 1904, the government filed a clear list completing the transfer.
The land now owned by appellants continued in state ownership until 1953. It was owned by one L. E. Graham from 1953 to 1960, when appellants acquired the property. Soon after 1960 a dwelling house was built within six feet of the ditch. Corrals and fences were built across the ditch.
From the time they purchased the property, until about 1965, appellants accepted the presence of the ditch. They were displeased with the ditch, but believed the statute of limitations had run and they could do nothing about it. In 1965, appellants were plaintiffs in Okanogan County cause No. 16640 against respondents Campbell. In their complaint therein they acknowledged the right of respondent William H. Sylvester to use the canal.
Disputes arose about the use of the ditch, and its maintenance. This action was instituted May 9, 1969, after appellant Robert Imhoff had forceably removed part of the ditch with a bulldozer, as well as having stopped the flow of water on other occasions.
Respondents, William H. Sylvester and wife, started this action asking for injunctive relief and for a decree quieting his title in the ditch. The respondents, other than William H. Sylvester and wife, were Austin Sylvester and wife, Clarence Campbell and wife, and W. W. Witham and wife. They were joined by action of appellants by a third party complaint. Since the institution of the action, W. W. Witham has died and his widow, Nellie G. Witham, has been substituted.
Respondents rely upon three theories. (1) The federal legislation of 1866 gave the right to construct and maintain a ditch across the public domain. (2) The respondents claim to have received rights through the defunct Whitestone Water Users' Association. (3) The use of the ditch was open, notorious and adverse, and respondents gained rights by prescription.
After trial, the superior court made findings of fact, conclusions of law and entered a judgment. Finding of fact No. 1 reads:
1. The Whitestone Irrigation Ditch was established and used for delivery of water for beneficial application to the land in the year 1903 or prior thereto and at the time of the establishment and putting such ditch to beneficial use the land over which it traversed was Public Domain.
Finding of fact No. 2 reads:
2. The Whitestone Irrigation Ditch has been in continuous beneficial use since the time it was established in 1903 or prior thereto and has remained in substantially the same location to the present date.
Finding of fact No. 4 reads:
4. The use of such ditch by plaintiff and third party defendants and their predecessors in interest at all times since the establishment thereof and since the time said land passed from government ownership to private ownership, which is more than ten years from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northshore School Dist. No. 417 v. Kinnear
...to reject a trial court's findings of fact 'if evidence is present in the record to support the findings.' Sylvester v. Imhoff, 81 Wash.2d 637, 639, 503 P.2d 734, 735 (1972); Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wash.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959); See also Mell v. Winslow, 49 Wash.2d 738......
-
Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Mining Co.
...a trial court's findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by 'substantial evidence'. Sylvester v. Imhoff, 81 Wash.2d 637, 503 P.2d 734 (1972). Nevertheless, evidence that may be sufficiently 'substantial' to support an ultimate fact in issue based upon a 'prepon......
-
Continental Ins. Co. v. Paccar, Inc.
...432, 437, 545 P.2d 1193 (1976). The conclusions challenged by Continental are supported by the findings. E. g., Sylvester v. Imhoff, 81 Wash.2d 637, 503 P.2d 734 (1972). THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT CANCELLATION THE POLICY CREATED AN AMBIGUITY AS TO THE ANNUAL SELF-RETAINED AG......
-
Dexter v. Spokane County Health Dist.
...(1989). Issues of fact are resolved by findings and tested under the substantial evidence standard. See, e.g., Sylvester v. Imhoff, 81 Wash.2d 637, 639, 503 P.2d 734 (1972). Reasons justifying discretionary decisions are tested under the abuse of discretion standard. Coggle v. Snow, 56 Wash......