Opinion ID: 2229282
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant next asserts the trial judge committed reversible error in effecting a sua sponte evidential view of the involved properties.

Text: At the outset, a trial judge has inherent right to view premises for a better understanding of the testimony, but must not consider his observations as evidence. See Wharton v. City of Oskaloosa, 158 N.W.2d 834, 836 (Iowa 1968). It appears, however, the trial judge did find, from his self-initiated inspection tour: The plat and survey introduced into evidence do not locate the residence with regard to the lot lines, and in the absence of expert testimony on this question, the Court from viewing the premises and the testimony as to the northerly line of the First Street right of way, east of Eleventh Avenue, finds that the front portion of the Schuster residence extends slightly beyond the platted lot line into what the City claims is the extension of First Street right of way to the south. Nevertheless, no resultant prejudice is urged by Camanche and we find none. Cf. State v. Little, 164 N.W.2d 81, 83 (Iowa 1969); Hampton v. Burrell, 236 Iowa 79, 91, 17 N.W.2d 110 (1945). The presently considered issue is without substance. IV. As previously observed, trial court held defendant is estopped from asserting any public right to the land located between plaintiff's deeded property line and the Mississippi River high water mark. Further in this regard, as best determinable from a diffuse record, the Mississippi River high water line is located south of or below the above noted retaining wall and we proceed upon that premise. Noticeably, Mrs. Schuster testified she and her husband improved and maintained the triangular tract of land down to the concrete wall at top of the riverbank. Evidence was also adduced to the effect no one has ever been prevented from using the beach, occasionally utilized by fishermen and children. In essence, plaintiff exercised some though not exclusive use of the bank below the retaining wall. Our independent review of the record reveals insufficient evidence to support plaintiff's estoppel contention with respect to the area located below or south of the retaining wall. This means trial court erred in enjoining defendant from exercising public rights as to dominion over and control of land located between said retaining wall and the Mississippi River high water line. In other words, plaintiff's superior and paramount right extends only to the southerly or riverward side of the above noted retaining wall. On remand trial court shall accordingly modify the decree from which this appeal is taken. Costs are taxed to defendant. Affirmed in part, modified in part, and remanded with directions.