DOCSLIB.ORG

Bailment Basics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bailment Basics New Condo Laws Bailment basics Bailment basics Resource kit 90418 Jill Muratori, Esq. Insurance producers often deal with coverage issues that involve bailments. Dan Corbin discusses some of these coverage issues in Resource kit 90419—Bail-ing out. But before you dive into that resource kit and the coverage issues presented by bailments, it is important first to understand some of the basics about bailments. What is a bailment? A bailment is defined as a relationship created by a transfer of possessions of personal property by one party (the bailor) to another party (the bailee) for some particular purpose. In a bailment, possession of the property is transferred, but title to the property is not. In addition to the transfer of possession, there must be an acceptance of possession by the bailee. In other words, the bailee must knowingly take the property. While a bailment generally is regarded as a contractual relationship, no express contract is necessary to create a bailment. For the most part, bailments are a very ordinary, everyday occurrences. For example, a bailment is created when you leave your clothes with the dry cleaner to be cleaned, when you leave your car at the repair shop to be fixed or when you loan a friend your computer. Bailments distinguished Bailments should be distinguished from other arrangements which either are not bailments at all or are a form of bailment not commonly thought of as such. Sales. A sale is not a bailment because a sale involves the transfer of both possession and title. However, when goods are delivered on "approval" the transaction will constitute a bailment, since title to the goods does not pass until the bailee exercises the option to buy and accepts title to the goods. A "sale or return" should be distinguished from a sale on approval. It is a true sale and not a bailment. It simply gives the buyer the privilege of revesting title in the seller. Consignment. A consignment is a type of bailment, sometimes known as a bailment for sale. Usually the consignee is not just a bailee, but also is an agent of the consignor to sell the goods. Rental of space. Where the owner of the property merely rents space to store property but does not transfer possession of his property, no bailment is created. A common example is when automobiles are left in parking lots or parking garages. The arrangement may be a simple rental of space or in certain instances it could be a bailment. If the owner of the vehicle simply parks the car and keeps the keys, no bailment is established because the owner has not transferred possession or control of the car. However, where the parking lot attendant parks or moves the car, and where the keys are either left in the car or with the parking lot attendant, the attendant is usually found to have assumed possession of the car and a bailment is created. Bailee's duty with respect to the bailed goods The bailee of bailed property generally must exercise some degree of care with respect to the bailed property. The traditional view is that the standard of care required by the bailees with respect to the bailed property depends on the type of bailment. While a bailee is not an insurer of the property, the bailee will be liable for damage or loss to the bailed goods if he or she has not exercised the appropriate standard of care. Mutual benefit bailment. In a mutual benefit bailment, both the bailor and the bailee receive some benefit from the arrangement. A bailment for hire is an example of a mutual benefit bailment. Therefore, when I leave my clothes at the dry cleaner, I (the bailor) receive the benefit of clean clothes and the dry cleaner (the bailee) receives the benefit of monetary compensation. In a mutual benefit bailment, the bailee must exercise ordinary care with respect to the bailed property and will be liable for ordinary negligence. Ordinary care is that degree of care a person of ordinary prudence would use if the property were his or her own. What constitutes ordinary care depends on the circumstances of the case and the subject matter of the bailment. For example, a dry cleaner probably should take greater precautions in safeguarding a $50,000 Vera Wang wedding dress delivered for cleaning than if the property bailed was a $20 pair of jeans. Bailment for sole benefit of bailor. Under this type of arrangement only the bailor receives the benefit of the bailment. The bailee receives no compensation and is known as a gratuitous bailee. For example, I was a gratuitous bailee last week when my neighbor asked me to take possession and care of her dog, Fido, while she was away on vacation. The traditional view is that with this type of bailment the bailee only must exercise slight care with respect to the property and will be liable for gross negligence only. Slight care is a lesser degree of care than ordinary care. Gross negligence is generally defined as an act or omission of an aggravated nature exhibiting a conscious indifference to the property of another. Therefore, if during the bailment, Fido bolts past me when I open the door for the UPS man, runs into the road and is hit by a car, I would probably not be liable to my neighbor for the loss of her dog. I would be liable only if I did something grossly negligent—for instance, if, while playing fetch with Fido, I threw his ball into the road when an oncoming truck was in plain view. Bailment for the sole benefit of bailee. In this type of bailment the benefit is for the bailee only. For example, if I loan my new computer to my friend Joan so she can write a romance novel, and I do not receive any compensation, Joan (the bailee) derives all the benefit from the bailment. In this case, Joan would have to exercise great care for the protection of my computer and would be liable for even slight negligence. Great care is a higher degree of care than ordinary care. It is the scrupulous care and diligence that the most careful person applies to his or her own affairs. Therefore, if Joan spills coffee on my new computer while working on her novel, despite using a spill-proof cup, she would probably still be held liable for the damages to my computer. Limitations of liability Bailees often attempt to exculpate or limit their obligations completely in the event of loss or damage to the bailed goods. While the parties to a bailment are free to enter into any type of contract they desire, it is important to note that contracts which completely exonerate the bailee for negligence are generally not looked upon favorably by courts. This is because of public policy considerations which disfavor one party's complete exoneration for neglignece, fraud or willful act. Generally, in order for the bailee to limit his or her obligations with respect to the bailed goods, the assent of both the bailor and bailee is needed. If the bailor doesn't have actual knowledge of the limitation of liability by the bailee, the bailor generally is not bound unless, under the circumstances of the particular case, he or she is charged with notice. Conclusion With a basic understanding of the law of bailments, you may find it easier to digest issues concerning this type of arrangement. These cases are intended for information only. They are not intended for legal advice nor to suggest any legal course of action.1/05 PIA—your best source of information With respect to all information found in this communication, PIA of Florida and its directors, officers, members, or employees make no warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information contained therein. PIA of Florida does not warrant that the information or services will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error-free or uninterrupted; nor shall PIA of Florida be liable for any indirect, incidental, or consequential damages sustained or incurred in connection with the use of information in this communication. Under no circumstances will PIA of Florida be liable for any loss or damage caused by anyone's reliance on information contained in this communication. 1-05 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • July 2007 Real Property Question 6
    July 2007 Real Property Question 6 MEE Question 6 Owen owned vacant land (Whiteacre) in State B located 500 yards from a lake and bordered by vacant land owned by others. Owen, who lived 50 miles from Whiteacre, used Whiteacre for cutting firewood and for parking his car when he used the lake. Twenty years ago, Owen delivered to Abe a deed that read in its entirety: Owen hereby conveys to the grantee by a general warranty deed that parcel of vacant land in State B known as Whiteacre. Owen signed the deed immediately below the quoted language and his signature was notarized. The deed was never recorded. For the next eleven years, Abe seasonally planted vegetables on Whiteacre, cut timber on it, parked vehicles there when he and his family used the nearby lake for recreation, and gave permission to friends to park their cars and recreational vehicles there. He also paid the real property taxes due on the land, although the tax bills were actually sent to Owen because title had not been registered in Abe’s name on the assessor’s books. Abe did not build any structure on Whiteacre, fence it, or post no-trespassing signs. Nine years ago, Abe moved to State C. Since that time, he has neither used Whiteacre nor given others permission to use Whiteacre, and to all outward appearances the land has appeared unoccupied. Last year, Owen died intestate leaving his daughter, Doris, as his sole heir. After Owen’s death, Doris conveyed Whiteacre by a valid deed to Buyer, who paid fair market value for Whiteacre.
    [Show full text]
  • DCCA Opinion No. 01-CV-1437: Sylvia Maalouf V. Imran Butt, Et
    Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 01-CV-1437 SYLVIA MAALOUF, APPELLANT, V. IMRAN BUTT, et al., APPELLEES. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (SC-20704-00) (Hon. Milton C. Lee, Hearing Commissioner) (Hon. Steffen W. Graae, Trial Judge) (Submitted November 19, 2002 Decided February 20, 2003) Sylvia Maalouf, pro se. Sean D. Hummel was on the brief, for appellees. Before TERRY and STEADMAN, Associate Judges, and FERREN, Senior Judge. FERREN, Senior Judge: In this small claims case, appellant Maalouf, proceeding pro se, sought damages from appellee Butt for the loss of her car at Butt’s repair shop. The hearing commissioner, sustained by a trial judge, found for Maalouf but awarded her only $150 for the loss of the car radio. Maalouf contends on appeal that the commissioner erred in denying full damages for loss of the car on the ground that Maalouf had failed to present sufficient evidence of the car’s value (in addition to the value of the radio) as of the time she brought the vehicle to Butt’s shop for repair. We reverse and remand for further 2 proceedings. Maalouf testified that her car, while under Butt’s control, had been vandalized twice and eventually stolen. The hearing commissioner accepted her testimony as true for purposes of decision, and the issue thus became the amount of recovery.1 “The traditional standard for calculating damages for conversion is the fair market value of the property at the time of the conversion”– here, as of the time Maalouf brought the car to Butt’s shop for repair.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Property Wrongs of Self Storage
    FOUR PROPERTY WRONGS OF SELF-STORAGE LAW Jeffrey Douglas Jones Table of Contents Introduction: Setting Aside the Constitutional Question I. The Wild, Wild Lease: Self-Storage Agreements and Default Practices A. Owner’s Liens B. Lien Attachment and Risk of Loss C. From Default to Lien Enforcement D. Lien Enforcement Transferring Title to Landlord E. Lien Enforcement by Public Auction II. The Property Wrongs of Self-Storage Law A. The “Crap” Rule B. Tort Law Misfires and the Elimination of Bailments C. Ignored Parallels to Residential Landlord-Tenant Reform D. Treasure Trove and Self-Storage Treasure Hunters III. Conclusion: Legal Reform, Voluntariness, and the Property Ethic “Own Less” Jeffrey Douglas Jones, Associate Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School; J.D., The University of Michigan Law School-Ann Arbor; Ph.D. Philosophy, The University of Wisconsin-Madison. [Thanks] 1 Jones / Four Property Wrongs of Self-Storage Law Introduction: Setting Aside the Constitutional Question Self-storage leases are troubling. Under such leases, self-storage facility owners may freely dispose of defaulting tenants’ medical and tax records, family ashes, heirlooms, etc. in the same manner as they would treat fungible items such as chairs or a bookshelf. Facility owners are legally entitled to do so through facility-sponsored auctions, most of which are unrestricted by any duty to conduct commercially reasonable sales. Still worse, these legal self- storage practices have generated a clandestine culture of treasure-hunting that often leaves tenants—some of whom default due to medical emergencies, bankruptcy or who are homeless working poor—with little opportunity either to regain good standing or obtain fair market value for their belongings.
    [Show full text]
  • Inadequate Protection of Tenants' Property During Eviction and the Need for Reform Larry Weiser Prof
    Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 20 | Issue 3 Article 2 2008 Adding Injury to Injury: Inadequate Protection of Tenants' Property During Eviction and the Need for Reform Larry Weiser Prof. & Dir. Of Clinical Law Programs, Gonzaga University, School of Law Matthew .T Treu Assoc., Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen & Sanders, Law Vegas Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Larry Weiser & Matthew T. Treu Adding Injury to Injury: Inadequate Protection of Tenants' Property During Eviction and the Need for Reform, 20 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 247 (2008). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol20/iss3/2 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEA TURE AR TICLES Adding Injury to Injury: Inadequate Protection of Tenants' Property During Eviction and the Need for Reform By Larry Weiser* & Matthew W. Treu** I. Introduction Irene Parker, an 82 year-old single woman with health problems, was evicted at Christmas-time due to repair and rental disputes with her landlords. The amount in dispute was $1,200, far less than the monetary value of Ms. Parker's life possessions, which was $15,000. Upon being evicted and having everything she owned put on a public curb, Ms. Parker was forced to pay for a cab so that she could stay at a friend's home until she could find a new place to live.
    [Show full text]
  • (BAILOR) This BAILMENT
    Attachment A BAILMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (BAILEE) AND [Name of Vendor] (BAILOR) This BAILMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between [Name of Vendor], Inc., with offices located at [address of Vendor] , hereinafter referred to as the "Bailor," and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), through the named Contracting Officer, hereinafter referred to as the "Bailee." Bailor and Bailee are also referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” The Parties Agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE. 1.1. The Purpose of this Agreement is for Bailor to loan to Bailee at no cost to Bailee, and Bailee to take possession of and use certain property, more fully described within the inventory sheet provided in Phase 2 of the Network testing Request for Information (RFI), hereinafter referred to as the “Bailed Property,” in accordance with its design for the benefit of the Bailee; while the Bailee may test or evaluate the Bailed Property while it is in the Bailee’s possession, the Parties agree that the Bailee is under no obligation to make its test or evaluation results known to the Bailor. 1.2. The Parties agree that entering into this Agreement for the stated Purpose is to their mutual benefit, and that such benefit constitutes full and adequate consideration for entering into this Agreement. By entering into this Agreement, neither party assumes any obligations of any kind to the other party not expressly stated herein. This Agreement does not constitute or create a joint venture, partnership, or formal business entity of any kind. 1.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2– Property Ownership
    Chapter 2– Property Ownership Learning Goals: • Define and describe land, real estate, and real property. • Identify and explain the concept of the bundle of legal rights in the ownership of real property. • Define and describe surface rights, subsurface rights, and air rights. • Describe the differences between real property and personal property. • Define and describe the differences between a fixture and a trade fixture. • Identify and apply the legal tests of a fixture. • List and explain the economic and physical characteristics of real property. Chapter 2 VOCABULARY Characteristics of Real Property include: A. Physical characteristics 1. Immobility—the land can be changed, but it cannot be moved 2. Indestructibility—the land can be changed, but it cannot be destroyed 3. Nonhomogeneity—all parcels of land are unique B. Economic characteristics 1. Relative scarcity—land in the imme diate areas may be limited or unavailable 2. Improvements—one property can affect the uses and values of many properties 3. Permanence of investment—real estate investments tend to be long-term and relatively stable 4. Area preference (situs)—refers to people’s preferences and choices in an area C. Real estate characteristics define land use 1. Contour and elevation of the parcel 2. Prevailing winds 3. Transportation 4. Public improvements 5. Availability of natural resources, such as minerals and water ABC Real Estate School 3st ed National Workbook August 2010 Page 19 Land: the surface of the earth plus the subsurface rights, extending downward to the center of the earth and upward infinitely into space; including things permanently attached by nature - such as trees and water.
    [Show full text]
  • Property @Ction
    December 2010 Review Property @ction Welcome to the Sixth Edition of the Quarterly Review from Hammonds’ Property@ction Team. In this issue we will look at the following: (i) You can’t take it with you! - when a chattel becomes a fixture; (ii) Authorised Guarantee Agreements – Guarantors; (iii) When is an excluded lease not excluded?; (iv) Rent as an administration expense; (v) A Strategic Approach to LPA Receiverships; We welcome all contributions to this review and if you would like to discuss this further please contact any of the editorial team. ‘You can’t take it with you!’ Whether you are a tenant or a freehold owner, you may think that whatever you put into a property remains yours to take away again when you leave. However, this is not always the case. Once an item is placed within a property it can become a “fixture”, deemed to belong to whoever owns the property. Fixtures will (unless specifically excluded by contract) be covered by a mortgage of the property, be included in a sale of the property and may pass to the landlord of a leasehold property on expiry or transfer of the lease. HOW DOES AN ITEM BECOME A FIXTURE? 1. Is there a sufficient degree of annexation? If the item rests on its own weight, then unless there is a demonstrable intention to use it as a fixture (see below) it will remain a “chattel” – the personal property of the person who bought the item and not of the landowner. This is the case regardless of the size of the item.
    [Show full text]
  • [1] the Basics of Property Division
    RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW FOURTH, PROPERTY PROJECTED OVERALL TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME [1] THE BASICS OF PROPERTY DIVISION ONE: DEFINITIONS Chapter 1. Meanings of “Property” Chapter 2. Property as a Relation Chapter 3. Separation into Things Chapter 4. Things versus Legal Things Chapter 5. Tangible and Intangible Things Chapter 6. Contracts as Property [pointers to Contracts Restatement and UCC] Chapter 7. Property in Information [pointer to Intellectual Property Restatement(s)] Chapter 8. Entitlement and Interest Chapter 9. In Rem Rights Chapter 10. Residual Claims Chapter 11. Customary Rights Chapter 12. Quasi-Property DIVISION TWO: ACCESSION Chapter 13. Scope of Legal Thing Chapter 14. Ad Coelum Chapter 15. Airspace Chapter 16. Minerals Chapter 17. Caves Chapter 18. Accretion, etc. [cross-reference to water law, Vol. 2, Ch. 2] Chapter 19. Fruits, etc. Chapter 20. Fixtures Chapter 21. Increase Chapter 22. Confusion Chapter 23. Improvements DIVISION THREE: POSSESSION Chapter 24. De Facto Possession Chapter 25. Customary Legal Possession Chapter 26. Basic Legal Possession Chapter 27. Rights to Possess Chapter 28. Ownership versus Possession Chapter 29. Transitivity of Rights to Possess Chapter 30. Sequential Possession, Finders Chapter 31. Adverse Possession Chapter 32. Adverse Possession and Prescription Chapter 33. Interests Not Subject to Adverse Possession Chapter 34. State of Mind in Adverse Possession xvii © 2016 by The American Law Institute Preliminary draft - not approved Chapter 35. Tacking in Adverse Possession DIVISION FOUR: ACQUISITION Chapter 36. Acquisition by Possession Chapter 37. Acquisition by Accession Chapter 38. Specification Chapter 39. Creation VOLUME [2] INTERFERENCES WITH, AND LIMITS ON, OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION Introductory Note (including requirements of possession) DIVISION ONE: PROPERTY TORTS Chapter 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ownership – Acquisition, Proof and Extinction
    Ownership Acquisition of ownership Modalities of Acquisition of Individual Ownership . Generally, the law recognizes two types/class of acquiring ownership: Original acquisition, and Derivative acquisition . Ownership is said to be acquired through original acquisition when an individual acquires ownership over a given thing by his own, without depending on anyone's title/ownership. Ownership may be acquires in this manner over a thing which: - has never been owned, res nullius - has had owner but abandoned, res derelictae - has owner, but the new owner doesn’t depend on the pre-existing OP as a source . Derivative acquisition refers to the acquisition of ownership through transfer of ownership. This is a case of buying/taking the right rather than establishing original ownership. It is a derivative mechanism of acquiring ownership. It requires juridical acts and is dependent on the quality of ownership of the original acquirer. Original Acquisition of Ownership . The CC recognizes 4 modes of original acquisition of OP: - Occupation - Possession in good faith - Usucaption - Accession . Some apply to acquisition of OP only on corporeal movables, others to immovable only & some for both. Acquisition of OP by Occupation . No clear definition of the term in the CC . From a systematic reading of Art 1151 we can describe Occupation as: a mode of acquiring OP whereby a person becomes an owner of a masterless corporeal chattel by taking possession of the thing with the intention of becoming owner. Thus, in order to become owner by occupation, the following elements must be fulfilled cumulatively: - The thing must be a corporeal movable - The thing must be susceptible of private appropriation - The thing must be masterless - The person must have taken possession of the thing - The possession must be with intention of becoming owner of the thing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 2001 The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession Jeffrey E. Stake Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Stake, Jeffrey E., "The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession" (2001). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 221. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/221 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession JEFFREY EVANS STAKE* "[M]an, like a tree in the cleft of a rock, gradually shapes his roots to his surroundings, and when the roots have grown to a certain size, can't be displaced without cutting at his life. "1 INTRODUCTION In the above quotation, Justice Holmes explained title by prescription and the '2 "strange and wonderful" doctrine of adverse possession. Judge Posner has argued that Holmes was making a point about the diminishing marginal utility of income. I think not. One purpose of this Article is to develop a different interpretation of Justice Holmes, an interpretation with roots in modem experi- mental psychology and the theory of loss aversion. 4 Professors Stoebuck and Whitman stated in their property treatise, "If we had no doctrine of adverse possession, we should have to invent something very like it."'5 That was true in the past and may still be true today, but it is not at all clear that it will remain true in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Possession As the Root of Title
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1979 Possession as the Root of Title Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "Possession as the Root of Title," 13 Georgia Law Review 1221 (1979). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POSSESSION AS THE ROOT OF TITLE Richard A. Epstein* I. TM PROBLEM STATED A beautiful sea shell is washed ashore after a storm. A man picks it up and puts it in his pocket. A second man comes along and takes it away from him by force. The first man sues to recover the shell, and he is met with the argument that he never owned it at all. How does the legal system respond to this claim? How should it respond? The same man finds the same shell, only now the state, through its public processes, comes along and insists that the shell belongs to the common fund. It offers the man nothing for it, claiming that the shell was found by luck and coincidence and not by planned and systematic labor. How does the legal system respond to this claim? How should it respond? The questions just put can recur in a thousand different forms in any organized legal system. The system itself presupposes that there are rights over given things that are vested in certain indi- viduals within that system.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 6 N.C.P.I.—Civil 820.10 ADVERSE POSSESSION—COLOR of TITLE
    Page 1 of 6 N.C.P.I.—Civil 820.10 ADVERSE POSSESSION—COLOR OF TITLE. General Civil Volume Replacement April 2019 ------------------------------ 820.10 ADVERSE POSSESSION—COLOR OF TITLE.1 The (state number) issue reads: “Does the plaintiff hold title to (identify land) by adverse possession under color of title?”2 Color of title means that the person claiming the land has a [deed] [will] [state other document] which appears to pass title, but which does not do so because of some legal deficiency.3 (Here identify the instrument claimed as color of title and describe the deficiency.) On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.4 This means that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, four things: First, that (identify land) described in the [deed] [will] [identify other instrument] was actually possessed5 by the plaintiff (and those through whom the plaintiff claims).6 Actual possession means physical possession, control and use of the land as if it were one's own property.7 Actual possession includes any use that the land's size, character, nature, location and circumstances would permit.8 A mere intention to claim the land is not enough. If the plaintiff is in actual possession of some part of the land described in the [deed] [will] [identify other instrument], the law presumes that person has possession of all it.9 Second, that this actual possession was exclusive and hostile10 to the defendant (and those through whom the defendant claims). Possession is hostile when it is without permission and is of such a nature as to give notice that the exclusive right to the land is claimed.
    [Show full text]