Home/Washington Supreme Court/Hughes v. State

Hughes v. State

410 P.2d 20, 67 Wash. 2d 799, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 850
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 20, 1966
Docket37583
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 410 P.2d 20 (Hughes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hughes v. State, 410 P.2d 20, 67 Wash. 2d 799, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 850 (Wash. 1966).

Opinions

Weaver, J.

— The questions of law generated by this appeal spring from article 17 of the state constitution, its historical background, and its interpretation, legislative, administrative, and judicial.

Article XVII — Tide Lands
§ 1 Declaration of State Ownership. The state of Washington asserts its ownership to the beds and shores of all navigable waters in the state up to and including the line of ordinary high tide, in waters where the tide ebbs and flows, and up to and including the line of ordinary high water within the banks of all navigable rivers and lakes: Provided, that this section shall not be construed so as to debar any person from asserting his claim to vested rights in the courts of the state.
§ 2 Disclaimer of Certain Lands. The state of Washington disclaims all title in and claim to all tide, swamp and overflowed lands, patented by the United States: Provided, the same is not impeached for fraud. (Italics ours.)

Plaintiffs, Stella Hughes, is the owner of an upland tract of land on the Long Beach Peninsula near Ocean Park, [801]*801Pacific County, Washington. Title is deraigned from a patent issued prior to statehood. In this action to quiet title plaintiff alleges1 that the west boundary of the tract is described as

the line of ordinary high tide of the Pacific Ocean. (Italics ours.)

She prays that the court establish the westerly boundary of her property to be “the line of mean high tide of the Pacific Ocean.” No time for the determination is indicated.

The trial court found that since the original survey and establishment of the meander line by the United States government in 1859, imperceptible accretions have formed in front of plaintiff’s property, both before and after November 11,1889, and that all the accretion belongs to plaintiff as upland owner. The state does not claim the accretion prior to 1889, the date of its admission to the union. It contends, however, that the present western boundary of plaintiff’s land and the present eastern boundary of the state’s tidelands is the line of “ordinary high tide” as it existed November 11, 1889. In its answer and cross complaint, the state alleges that this line on November 11, 1889 was described as follows:

Beginning at a point whose Y coordinate is 436,139.17 and whose X coordinate is 1,104,683.64, referred to the Washington Coordinate System, South Zone, and running thence on an azimuth of 1°14/05// 3412.79 feet to a point whose Y coordinate is 432,727.18 and whose X coordinate is 1,104,610.10, referred to said coordinate system.

The state appeals from a judgment dated February 10, 1964, which determines:

that the western boundary of the foregoing property [of plaintiff] is the line of mean high tide of the Pacific Ocean [802]*802as it now or hereafter may exist, which line is the average elevation of all high tides as observed at a location in front of the property through a complete tidal cycle of 18.6 years. (Italics ours.)

We point to the possible difference between “ordinary high tide,” as set forth in the constitution, and “mean high tide as it now (February 10, 1964) or hereafter may exist,” as determined by the trial court. We also point out that the superior court determined a possible changing or shifting western boundary for plaintiff’s property.

This appeal brings into sharp focus the following questions:

(a) When did title to the tidelands vest in the State of Washington? (b) What is the nature of the State’s ownership? (c) What is the extent of the State’s ownership? i.e. what is the dividing line between the upland property and the state-owned tideland? (We are not concerned with the seaward line in the instant case. See the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1315 (1958 ed.)). (d) Is the dividing line a fixed line or is it a changing line depending upon accretion or reliction? (e) If a fixed line, as of what date should it be established? The trial court said in its oral opinion:

It is a rather interesting circumstance to me that this being 1964, it is about 75 years since statehood and that our State Supreme Court would not have been called upon specifically and directly to decide the questions involved here and particularly that question of moving line.”

Undoubtedly there are other questions that might arise, but we deem the foregoing sufficient to present the issues of the instant case.

For the sake of clarity and in order to illustrate the facts we set forth the following sketch, prepared by the court from exhibits in the record. It is not drawn to scale.

[803]*803 8201gcG6p60fplJ4bWRCQ

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

California Ex Rel. State Lands Commission v. United States
457 U.S. 273 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Sotomura v. County of Hawaii
402 F. Supp. 95 (D. Hawaii, 1975)
Hudson House, Inc. v. Rozman
509 P.2d 992 (Washington Supreme Court, 1973)
Harris v. Hylebos Industries, Inc.
505 P.2d 457 (Washington Supreme Court, 1973)
Smith Tug & Barge Co. v. Columbia-Pacific Towing Corp.
482 P.2d 769 (Washington Supreme Court, 1971)
Anderson v. Olson
461 P.2d 343 (Washington Supreme Court, 1969)
Hughes v. Washington
389 U.S. 290 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Camping Commission of the Pacific Northwest Conference of the Methodist Church v. Ocean View Land, Inc.
421 P.2d 1021 (Washington Supreme Court, 1966)
CAMP. COM'N OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONFERENCE OF METH. CH. v. Ocean View Land, Inc.
421 P.2d 1021 (Washington Supreme Court, 1966)
Hughes v. State
410 P.2d 20 (Washington Supreme Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
410 P.2d 20, 67 Wash. 2d 799, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-state-wash-1966.