(concurring specially).
While I do not think that the rule of B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 59 N. W. (2d) 813, can be applied in the present situation where the interest involved is a limited easement, I concur in the result because of the trial court’s finding to the effect that plaintiffs were not making observable use of the easement on January 1, 1948, so as to constitute possession within the meaning of Minn. St. 541.023, subd. 6, as construed in Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 103, 83 N. W. (2d) 800, 814, and United Parking Stations, Inc. v. Calvary Temple, 257 Minn. 272, 101 N. W. (2d) 208.