Court Opinion

ID: 9793601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:50:25.655142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:13.813403
License: Public Domain

DUNLAP, Justice,
Pro Tern., dissenting.
The record in this ease reflects that the apparent issue of estoppel discussed in part I of the majority opinion was not resolved by the trial court. This issue was raised by the pleadings and is one of both law and fact.
The failure of the Court to determine this issue is not explained, was not assigned as error on appeal, mentioned in any of the briefs or urged on oral argument. No new trial was requested. In view of this state of the record, I am not willing to engage in the exercise of the intellectual snobbery of raising and determining this issue on appeal.
This case was tried below solely on the theory of prescriptive rights, decided on that basis alone and the trial court’s decision on that question is the only issue raised on appeal by the parties. The absence of a decision on the estoppel issue may or may not have been intentional on the part of the court and parties and I am not about to assume that the trial court erred in not determining this issue.
I would remand this case for the sole purpose of enabling the court to make a determination of record if this was indeed an issue on trial between the parties and if it was to adjudicate same on the theories set forth in the majority opinion.
I am of the opinion that the trial court should be affirmed in its decision concerning the prescriptive right claims of the respondents. This case was tried to an able and experienced trial judge and I believe we should not depart from the long established rule of this Court that the findings of the trier of the facts based on substantial, competent though conflicting evidence should not be disturbed on appeal. Wright v. Wright, 97 Idaho 439, 546 P.2d 394 (1976).
SHEPARD, C. J., concurs.
*537[Defendants’ Exhibit E]
[[Image here]]
*538[Partial reproduction of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3]
[[Image here]]