Purchaser compelled to accept titledepend-ing on Statute of' Liuri-tations.

(r) Du Vigier v. Lee, 2 Ha. 326.

(s) Harrisson v. Duignan, 2 Dru. & W. 295; Hughes v. Kelly, 3 Dru. & W. 482.

(t) Hunter v. Nockolds, 1 Mac. & G. 640; Humfrey v. Gery, 7 C. B. 567.

(u) See Searle v. Colt, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 36: payment by executors and trustees in possession has been held binding as against the cestui que use: Francis v. Grover, 5 Ha. 39.

(v) Scott v. Nixon, 3 Dru. & W 388: the verification was merely by affidavit; but the Court expressly stated that the purchaser might, had he pleased, have insisted on a regular examination of witnesses: see p 402.

Possession for a time exceeding the statutory limit, bars not only the remedy, but also the right of the original owner (w): the effect of the Act being to make a Parliamentary Conveyance of the land to the person in possession, after the statutory period has elapsed (x); but possession, in order to transfer a valid title to any particular individual, must have been either by the same person, or by several persons claiming one from another: e. g., if twenty persons, unconnected with each other, had been in possession, each for one year consecutively, for twenty years, it would be impossible to say to which of the twenty persons the Act had transferred the title (y). Rent payable out of land is extinguished by its nonpayment during the statutory period; and time runs from the last actual receipt (z).

As to the title which may be acquired as against the Crown, and the Crown's Grantees, by adverse possession, it may be sufficient to refer to the Acts of 21 Jac. I. c. 14, and 9 Geo. III. c. 16 (a). The Acts of 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 71, and c. 100, seem to be binding on the Crown (b).

Possession under the Act. barsthe right, and not the remedy only.

Adverse possession as against the Crown.

(w) See s. 34: Scott v. Nixon, 3 Dru. & W. 388; Burroughs v. M'Creigkt, 1 J. & L. 290.

(a?) Per Parke, B., 14 M. & W. 42.

(y) Doe d. Carter v. Barnard, 13 Jur. 915; see judgment.

(z) Owen v. De Beauvoir, 16 M. & W. 547. As to the right of a lessor, at the expiration of the term, to encroachments made by the tenant during the tenancy, see Doe d. Lloyd v. Jones, 15 M. & W. 580, and cases cited.

(a) And see 1 Jarm. Conv. by S. 52; and Doe v. Roberts, 13 M. & W. 520.

(b) See s. 1.