the road should have been apparent to Defendants. In light of the policies supporting the neighbor accommodation exception, we agree, and affirm the decision of the district court. In Hester, the court stated that “[i]n this state, where large bodies of privately owned land are open and uninclosed, it is a matter of common knowledge that the owners do not object to persons passing over them for their accommodation____” 41 N.M. at 504-05, 71 P.2d at 651. The supreme court in Maestas v. Maestas, 50 N.M. 276, 175 P.2d 1003 (1946), limited the neighbor accommodation exception to “large bodies of unenclosed land ... where the owners thereof could not reasonably know of passings over said lands.” Id. at 279-80, 175 P.2d at 1006; see Matsu v. Chavez, 96 N.M. 775, 779, 635 P.2d 584, 588 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Sanchez v. Dale Bellamah Homes, Inc., 76 N.M.
recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant recognizing a fouryear statute of limitation for fraud claims recognizing judicial power to toll periods of limitation recognizing maestas limitation of hester