Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

SAN JUAN COUNTY, Respondent, v. PEDER M. HAGE et al., Appellants. Reported in 357 P.2d 166.

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to enjoin the defendants from obstructing a county road owned and maintained by the plaintiff. The defendants claimed that the portion of the road in question was constructed upon their property. Upon conflicting evidence, the court found that the road was located upon the property of the county and enjoined further interference with its use by the defendants.

The defendants' arguments relate to the facts of the case, and they assume that the court was obliged to accept the testimony favorable to their position and reject that which was opposed to it. There is, of course, no merit in this assumption.

Nowhere in the brief is any portion of the findings of fact, which the defendants claim to be erroneous, set forth, as required by Rules on Appeal 42 (1) (f) and 43, RCW Vol. 0. Consequently, they are the established facts of the case. Steele v. Queen City Broadcasting Co., 54 Wn.2d 402, 341 P.2d 499; Wheeler v. Fruhling, 54 Wn.2d 483, 341 P.2d 874. Since they unquestionably support the judgment, the latter must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SAN JUAN COUNTY v. HAGE
(Dec 1, 1960)