Court Opinion

ID: 9642503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:00:50.740388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:48.835939
License: Public Domain

Decision on Motion for Reargument.
Per Curiam.
After our decision in the above case, Winsten v. Slefkin, 88 R. I. 178, 143 A.2d 683, the complainant requested and received permission to file a motion for reargument. Pursuant to this permission she filed such a motion.
In our opinion granting the motion, Winsten v. Slefkin, 88 R. I. 190, 145 A.2d 549, we stated in part: “Upon *191consideration we are of the opinion that on the evidence in the record which complainant alleges we have overlooked or misconceived, her contention raises an issue of sufficient importance to warrant further arguments on the narrow issue of the precise location of the boundary of her land in relation to the east trench below the Lebanon-Walker Dam.”
Harold H. Winsten, for complainants.
Philip M. Hak, for respondents.
At the reargument the parties presented briefs and were heard orally. After careful consideration we are of the opinion that the complainant has not shown that, in reaching our conclusion concerning the narrow issue stated, we either overlooked or misconceived any material evidence bearing on the question of whether the westerly boundary of her land followed the thread of the east trench, so called, or the easterly bank of said east trench.
Therefore we see no necessity for changing our conclusion, and the cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings in accordance with our original opinion.