Opinion ID: 2288213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Existence of the Riparian Course

Text: The appellants contend that in view of the language in the Hubbard deed they were entitled to summary judgment. This argument is grounded on our recent decision in Stottlemyer v. Kline, 255 Md. 635, 259 A.2d 52 (1969), where we pointed out at page 648 that: The deeds and other evidence indicate an intention of the original draftsmen to insure that the owners of the land on the north and east side of Antietam Creek should not have any rights as a riparian owner abutting Antietam Creek as it then flowed, in that the boundary established never did abut the creek. The deed call in question there used this language:    North thirty-five degrees East nineteen perches to a stone near the Antietam Creek, thence with the meanderings of said creek within four feet of the water the sixteen following courses and distances .... 255 Md. at 645 On the basis of that explicit language and other evidence we affirmed the finding of a non-riparian course. Here, there is no language explicitly excluding such a course, only the omission of the riparian language used in describing some of the other boundaries, such as along the shore or beside a cove. While this omission by itself might constitute evidence of a contrary intent, we think that it does not exclude the possibility that this course touched the water, the hallmark of riparian rights. Stottlemyer v. Kline, supra at 646-47. To shore up their argument the appellants point to the language in their own deed which describes a common boundary along the Hubbards' sixth course. The necessary implication of having a common boundary, they argue, is that there must be land on both sides of it and that as a consequence they must own something on the other side of the entire sixth course. Again, this in itself suggests such a conclusion, but it does not exclude the factual possibility that when the sixth course is superimposed over the actual property in question part of it touches the water. This factual question alone was a bar to the granting of summary judgment. Fenwick Motor Co. v. Fenwick, 258 Md. 134, 138, 265 A.2d 256 (1970). In this case after weighing all the testimony, Judge Mace found as a fact that the part of the sixth course which was in dispute, i.e., that part of the line which was covered by the fill behind the bulkhead, ran through a shallow, muddy, marshy area which was completely covered by water at high tide. The mean high water line was the proper test to apply, for without re-engaging in the debate over what is the proper definition of navigable waters, [1] it is clear that where a body of tidal water happens to be navigable all of the waters between the opposite shores or banks are comprehended within the term `navigable water' as used in Chapter 129 of the Acts of 1862 [Art. 54,  45-48]. Wagner v. City of Baltimore, 210 Md. 615, 626, 124 A.2d 815 (1956). Where that shore ends and private ownership normally begins is determined by the mean high water mark, even though the area exposed by low tide might be described as marshy. Green, Tr. v. Eldridge, 230 Md. 441, 446-47, 187 A.2d 674 (1963); Cahill v. Baltimore, 173 Md. 450, 196 A. 305 (1938). See also United States v. Certain Land in County of Worcester, Md. (Assateague Island Opinion No. 2) 311 F. Supp. 1039, 1051 (1970). LeCompte Creek is a navigable stretch of tidal water whose shoreline includes the cove, which in point of fact was also navigable before it was dredged. There was, of course, conflicting evidence on the marshy nature of the shore in question, especially in regard to the tidal action over it, but once the mean high water mark was established we perceive no difficulty with the trial judge's determination that this must have been the point where the Owens' third course reached the waters of LeCompte Creek and the Hubbards' sixth course became a riparian one. There was also evidence, both pro and con, that a fence post some few feet behind the bulkhead was the terminus of the sixth course, a fact which would have militated against placing the boundary at the mean high water line, but Judge Mace found that this fence post stood six feet within the sixth course. We cannot say that this finding or the finding that the Hubbards' sixth course behind the bulkhead was riparian were clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 886. The appellants argue that we should nevertheless reverse and remand this case because the trial judge improperly viewed the premises. We do not agree. Judge Mace did view the premises with neither side present, but in a supplementary opinion addressed to this very issue he stated that he obtained the oral consent of counsel for both sides to do so. Counsel for the appellants did not recall that he gave such consent. The appellants also assert that this was a highly prejudicial view since the trial judge's own observations as to the location of the markers and the bulkhead played a great part in his decision on the riparian nature of the sixth course. Although we question the possible prejudice to the appellants' case, especially since the area behind the bulkhead had been completely covered by the backfill and its riparian nature could only have been established by the witnesses' recollections rather than present observation, we think the appellants have not effectively raised this point for review. Some time after this appeal was noted they filed a petition requesting the trial judge to detail what occurred when he viewed the premises. Judge Mace immediately responded to this request and nothing more was done. To preserve the point for appeal the appellants should have requested some relief. Since no such request was made and the trial judge did everything the appellant asked him to do, there is nothing before us to consider. Rule 885; Schiller v. Lefkowitz, 242 Md. 461, 476, 219 A.2d 378, cert. denied 385 U.S. 947 (1966); Martin v. City of Annapolis, 240 Md. 579, 589-90, 214 A.2d 800 (1965). We note, however, that Judge Mace's view of the premises does not appear to have been improper. He quite strongly believed he had obtained the consent of both sides, even though the better practice would have been to let the record reflect this understanding. Moreover, the abstruseness of the boundary question involved here would suggest that anyone would need to get his bearings to adequately resolve this case. His actions were imbued with the common sense of which Dean Wigmore speaks in his discussion on views of the premises by the trial judge. 4 Wigmore on Evidence,  1169 (3d ed. 1940 and 1970 Pocket Supp.)