OCR Text |
Show PRESCRIPTION 401 it "would not, standing alone, give them any rights to title by prescription."739 Some circumstances negating the establishment of prescription include: No adverse and hostile use.- Not adverse or hostile.740 No proof that use was adverse rather than permissive.741 No adverse and hostile use for statutory period.742 No adverse use with knowledge and acquiescence of owner.743 Ab- sence of convincing evidence when adverse use began.744 Not sufficiently hostile to give the injured party a cause of action.745 Use of water by down- stream claimants not hostile to rights of upstream users.746 Failure to show invasion of prior right by adverse party.747 No deprivation of rightful owner's use of water.-No deprivation of use when water needed.748 No continued deprivation; claimants were but periodic trespassers.749 Isolated cases of trespass, even over a long period of time.750 Water supply sufficient for needs of all users.751 No knowledge and acquiescence.-Ho proof that the rightful owner knew about the adverse taking or acquiesced in it.752 No exclusiveness.-"The defendants' testimony fails when it comes to proving the elements of exclusiveness and continuousness."753 "The proof fails continuous and adverse possession of any water right as against the plaintiff, nor have they used any water right from McClellan Creek, or at all, openly, notoriously, adversely, continuously and exclusively against the world, or against the rights of the plaintiff, under a claim of right." Lamping v.Diehl, 126 Mont. 193, 203-204, 246 Pac. (2d) 230 (1952). "'Hunziker v. Knowlton, 78 Wyo. 241, 251, 322 Pac. (2d) 141 (1958). 740Franktown Creek In. Co. v. Marlette Lake Co., 11 Nev. 348, 364 Pac. (2d) 1069, 1071-1072 (1961);Motl v. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82, 127-128, 286 S.W. 458 (1926);Francis v. Roberts, 73 Utah 98, 101, 272 Pac. 633 (1928); use no more than permissive, Colarchik v. Watkins, 144 Mont. 17, 393 Pac. (2d) 786, 789-790 (1964). "l Kilpatrick Bros. Co. v. Frenchman Valley In. Dist., 101 Nebr. 155, 156, 162 N.W. 422 (1917). mMadison v. McNeal, 171 Wash. 669, 676-678, 19 Pac. (2d) 97 (1933);£>mv v.Burgraff, 141 Mont. 405, 378 Pac. (2d) 232, 234-235 (1963). ^Campbell v. Wyoming Dev. Co., 55 Wyo. 347, 415, 100 Pac. (2d) 124, 102 Pac. (2d) 745 (1940). """Kuhlmann v. Platte Valley In. Dist., 166 Nebr. 493, 513, 89 N.W. (2d) 768 (1958). ^Houston Transp. Co. v. San Jacinto Rice Co., 163 S. W. 1023, 1028 (Tex. Civ. App. 1914). "6Mud Creek In., Agric. & Mfg. Co. v. Vivian, 74 Tex. 170, 174-175, 11 S.W. 1078 (1889). 741Havre In. Co. v. Majerus, 132 Mont. 410, 416, 318 Pac. (2d) 1076 (1951);Madison v. McNeal, 171 Wash. 669, 676,19 Pac. (2d) 97 (1933). ™Linford v. Hall & Son, 78 Idaho 49, 54, 297 Pac. (2d) 893 (1956);Maranville Ditch Co. v. Kilpatrick Bros. Co., 100 Nebr. 371, 372, 160 N.W. 81 (1916). "'Barnes v. Belsaas, 73 Wash. 205, 208, 131 Pac. 817 (1913). 150Downie v. Renton, 167 Wash. 374, 382-384, 9 Pac. (2d) 372 (1932). lslMeng v. Coffee, 67 Nebr. 500, 520, 93 N.W. 713 (1903); Redwater Land & Canal Co. v. Jones, 27 S. Dak. 194, 208, 130 N.W. 85 (1911). in Clark v. Ashley, 34 Colo. 285, 288-289, 82 Pac. 588 (1905). 1S3Krumwiede v. Rose, 177 Nebr. 570, 129 N. W. (2d) 491,498 (1964); appropriation of |