Volume 47 — Washington Reports, Second Series

[1] APPEAL AND ERROR — REVIEW — SUBSEQUENT APPEALS — FORMER DECISION AS LAW OF CASE — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. Where the weight and sufficiency of the evidence have been passed upon in a former appeal and the evidence at a second trial is substantially the same, the decision on the former appeal is decisive in a second appeal; however, when the evidence presented on the second appeal is materially different from that passed upon in a former appeal, the decision in the prior appeal is not conclusive. [2] ADVERSE POSSESSION — EXTENT OF POSSESSION — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY. In an action to establish a boundary line between beach lots, defended by the owners of the adjoining lot on the theory of adverse possession, the evidence establishes adverse possession by the defendants up to the disputed boundary, where it appears that the property was used as a recreation center every week end during the summers, that visitors camped there, that trees were planted by the defendants along the road for the one-hundred-foot width claimed by them, that the property was known by everybody as the defendants' property, and that the defendants drove stakes at each end of their boundary as they knew it.<page_number>Page 566</page_number> [3] TRIAL — TRIAL BY COURT — VIEW OF PREMISES. The only purpose of a view by the trial judge of property involved in litication is to aid him in his understanding of the evidence introduced in the case. [4] ADVERSE POSSESSION — HOSTILE CHARACTER OF POSSESSION — INTENT. In an action to establish a boundary line between beach lots, defended by the owners of the adjoining lot on the theory of adverse possession, held that it is clear from the acts of the defendants that they intended to claim title to all of the disputed area and to hold it as the owners. [5] SAME — CHARACTER OF POSSESSION. In such an action, held that the defendants' possession of the disputed area for more than the statutory period was actual and uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, and under a claim made in good faith. [6] BOUNDARIES — ASCERTAINMENT — APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION — COSTS. Where, in an action to establish a lost boundary, the defendants raised the question of adverse possession in their pleadings and justified their position, it was error for the trial court to appoint a commission to determine the location of the boundary; and the defendants cannot be charged with any portion of the costs of the commission so appointed. [4] See 80 A.L.R. 155; 1 Am. Jur. 864 <italic>et seq.</italic>