Volume 42 — Washington Reports, Second Series

[1] BOUNDARIES — ASCERTAINMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT — RECOGNITION AND ACQUIESCENCE. Where a boundary has been defined in good faith by the interested parties and thereafter for a long period of time acquiesced in, acted upon, and improvements made with reference to the line, such a boundary will be considered the true dividing line and will govern; whether or not the line so established is correct being immaterial. [2] SAME — RECOGNITION AND ACQUIESCENCE — TIME OF ESTABLISHMENT. The period of time which must elapse before a boundary line is established by acquiescence is the same as is required to secure property by adverse possession. [3] SAME — RECOGNITION AND ACQUIESCENCE — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY. A finding that a boundary had been established by recognition and acquiescence is not supported by the evidence, where there is no showing that the line had been defined mutually by the adjoining owners. [4] ADVERSE POSSESSION — NATURE AND REQUISITES. Possession of property, to be adverse, must have been actual and uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, and under a claim made in good faith; and it must have continued for the entire statutory period to support a claim of title. [5] SAME — EVIDENCE — BURDEN OF PROOF. To establish title by adverse possession, the character of the plaintiff's possession is a question of fact, and the burden of proof is upon him to establish its adverse nature; one requirement being that it be exclusive. [6] SAME — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY. In an action to quiet title based on adverse possession, the plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden upon the essential fact of the exclusive nature of their possession, where it appears that both parties used the strip involved, the defendants entered it when they cultivated, sprayed, and harvested their pears from trees whose branches overhung it, there was no ouster of the defendants from the strip, and they did not know or have reason to know that the plaintiffs possessed the strip and claimed it as their own. [7] SAME. In such an action, the lack of proof of a well defined boundary to the strip involved is also a fatal defect in the plaintiffs' claim by adverse possession. [1] See 113 A.L.R. 432; 8 Am. Jur. 797.<page_number>Page 367</page_number>

[1] CONTRACTS — REQUISITES AND VALIDITY — VALIDITY OF ASSENT — MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO CONTENTS OF WRITING. Where an aircraft rental form was filled out by means of information furnished by one desiring to rent an airplane and was submitted to him for his signature without any representations of any kind, and he had ample opportunity to examine the contract in as great detail as he cared and he failed to do so for his own personal reasons, he cannot be heard to deny that he executed the contract, and he is bound by it. [2] BAILMENT — LIABILITY OF BAILEE FOR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY. In an action against one who rented an airplane under a contract in which he agreed to fly only in daylight and to land at established airports except as an emergency measure, for damages sustained when the plane cracked up in landing after dark in a cow pasture, held that the evidence sustains the findings of the trial court that the plane was in good operating condition when it was preflight checked by the defendant, that no misrepresentations were made to him, and that the landing in the cow pasture after dark was not emergent; hence, the defendant is liable for the damage to the plane resulting from his breach of the contract in making such a prohibited landing.<page_number>Page 479</page_number> [3] SAME — ITEMS OF DAMAGE. In such an action, the cost of building a jig for use in repairing the plane was a proper item of damage, as were also the costs of dismantling, magnafluxing, and assembling the aircraft motor. [4] APPEAL AND ERROR — PRESERVATION OF GROUNDS — MATTERS NOT PRESENTED TO LOWER COURT. Where a contention that the evidence concerning an item of damages was too remote and speculative and that other evidence should have been presented, was not presented to the trial court during the course of the trial, it will not be considered on appeal. [5] SAME — ESTOPPEL TO ALLEGE ERROR — INVITED ERROR — FORM OF JUDGMENT. While approval of a judgment as to form does not prevent an aggrieved party from appealing, it does preclude basing the appeal upon the wording of the judgment. [2] See 150 A.L.R. 290; 6 Am. Jur. 394.