O'Neil

By this action p1ainti~ seeks to restrain defendant from using a portion of her property as a driveway. Defendant by answer and cross-complaint denied plaintiff’s exclusive right to the property and claimed the right to the use thereof in common with plaintiff, and prayed for damages for the denial of the use. The trial court found in favor of defendant and entered judgment quieting title to a common driveway and restraining plaintiff from interfering therewith and granting defendant one dollar damages and costs of suit. The court made numerous findings from which it appears that defendant’s title to the easement had been fully established by grant, estoppel, prescription, and ratification. Appellant claims that certain of these findings are not supported by the evidence. There is no merit in the contention. It appeared in evidence that the predecessors in interest of the parties had on August 1, 1912, entered into a written agreement to construct a mutual driveway upon contiguous portions of their respective premises. This joint use was for the purpose of enabling the owners to reach the rear of their respective lots by automobile. This grant of easement was expressly created and…