According to the maxim Nullum tempus occurrit regi, the adverse possession of land belonging to the state cannot, unless the statute otherwise provides, divest the government title.92 Nor can the state authorities, even by an express provision to that effect, make the statute of limitations effective as against the United States.93 The statutory limitation begins, however, to run in favor of one in hostile possession of public land so soon as its ownership passes to a grantee of the government. In determining the time at which the private ownership begins for this purpose, the decisions are not in accord, some holding that it does not begin until the issue of the patent,94 while others consider it as beginning so

Herndon v. Yates - (Mo.) - , 194 S. W. 46; Nutter v. De Roche-mont, 46 N. H. 80; Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 129, 9 Am. Dec. 476; Cozzens v. Farnan, 30 Ohio St. 491, 27 Am. Rep. 470; Thompson v. Smith, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 209; Mcfarland v. Stone, 17 Vt. 165, 44 Am. Dec. 325; Contra, Miller v. Bumgard-ner, 109 N. C. 412, 13 S. E. 935.

91. Dowell v. Tucker, 46 Ark. 438; Griswold v. Butler, 3 Conn. 227; Pim v. City of St. Louis, 122 Mo. 654, 27 S. W. 525; Henry v. Carson, 59 Pa. St. 297; Jackson v. Houston, 84 Tex. 622, 19 S. W. 799.

92. Wagnon v. Fairbanks, 105 Ala. 528, 17 So. 20; Doran v.

Central Pac. R. Co., 24 Cal. 245; Twining v. City of Burlington. 68 Iowa, 284, 27 N. W. 243; Hall v. vjittings' Lessee, 2 Har. & J. (Md.) 112; Munshower v. Patton, 10 Serg & R. (Pa.) 334. 13 Am. Dec. 678; Hall v. Webb, 21 W. Va. 318. See, as to statutes on the subject, 2 Dembitz, Land Titles, Sec. 179.

93. Gibson V. Chouteau. 13 Wall. (U. S.) 92, 20 L. Ed. 534; Redfield v. Parks, 132 U. S. 239.

33 L. Ed. 327.

94. Redfield v. Parks. 132 U.

S. 239, 33 L. 9d. 327; String-fellow v. Tennessee Coal. Iron & H. R. Co., 117 Ala, 250, 22 S. E. 997; Mathews v. Ferrea, 45 Cal. 51; Chllea v. Calk, 4 Bibb soon as, by payment for the land, the individual has become entitled to a patent.95

The question of the extent to which the statute of limitations runs against a municipal or quasi municipal corporation, as regards land belonging to it, has been the subject of much discussion, and the decisions are not in accord on the question. In the majority of the states, land owned by a municipality, and devoted to uses of a purely public character, as when the "fee" of a street or park is vested in the municipality, or land is conveyed to the municipality for a public building, hospital, or the like, the municipality is regarded as merely the agent of the state, and its rights cannot be affected by the statute of limitations,96 though in a

(Ky.) 554; Smith v. Mccorkle, 105 Mo. 135, 16 S. W. 602; King v. Thomas, 6 Mont. 409, 12 Pac. 865; South End Min. Co. v. Tinney, 22 Nev. 221, 38 Pac. 402; La Frombois v. Jackson, 8 Cow 589, 18 Am. Dec. 463; Clark v. Southard, 16 Ohio St. 408; Steele v. Boley, 7 Utah, 64, 24 Pac. 755.

95. Hibben v. Malone, 85 Ark. 584, 109 S. W. 1008; Bauman v. Grubbs, 26 Ind. 419; Dolen v. Black, 48 Neb. 688, 67 N. W. 760; Ambrose v. Huntington 34 Ore. 484, 56 Pac. 513; Patten v. Scott, 118 Pa. St. 115, 12 Atl. 292, 4 Am. St. Rep. 576; Udell v. Peak, 70 Tex. 547, 7 S. W. 786; Dutton v. Thompson, 85 Tex. 115, 19 S. W. 1026.

96. Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mobile, 128 Ala. 335, 30 So. 645, 86 Am. St. Rep. 143, 64 L. R. A. 333; Board of Education of City & County of San Francisco v. Martin, 92 Cal. 209, 28 Pac. 799; Norrell v. Augusta R. & Electric Co., 116 Ga. 313, 59 L. R. A. 101,

42 S. E. 466; City of Sullivan v. Tichenor, 179 111. 97, 53 N. E. 561; Close v. Chicago, 257 111. 47, 100 N. E. 215; Cheek v. City of Aurora, 92 Ind. 107; Kuehl v. Town of Bettendorf, 179 Iowa, 1, 161 N. W. 28; Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 82 Me. 391, 8 L. R. A. 828, 19 Atl. 902; Brady v. City of Baltimore, 130 Md. 506, 101 Atl. 142; St. Vincent Female Orphan Asylum v. Troy, 76 N. Y. 108, 32 Am. Rep. 286; Heddle-ston v. Hendricks, 52 Ohio St. 460, 40 N. E. 408; Comm. v. Moorehead, 118 Pa. 344, 4 Am. St. Rep. 559, 12 Atl. 424; Mckee v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 255 Pa. 560, 100 At. 454; Almy v. Church, 18 R. I. 182, 26 Atl. 58; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Supervisors of Carroll County, 110 Va. 95. 65 S. E. 531; Gustaveson v. Dwyer, 83 Wash. 303, 145 Pac. 458; Ralston v. Town of Weston, 46 W. Va. 544, 76 Am. St. Rep. 834, 33 S. E. 326. But the city may, by some aunumber of states a different view obtains.97 But even in the former class of states there is a tendency to distinguish between land devoted to public use and that which is held by the municipality in a "private capacity," and over which it has the power of alienation, the latter being regarded as subject to the bar of the statute

While there are authorities to the effect that land held by a railroad company for right of way purpos is so devoted to a public use as not to be the subject of adverse possession,99 such land is. by the weight of authority, so subject.1 thorities, be estopped, by reason of its acquiescence in improvements made on its land, to claim title to the land; Christopbersou v. Incorporated Town Forest City, 173 Iowa, 893, 160 N W. 691; Barton v. City of Portland. 74 Ore. 75, 144 Pac. 114-;; Wall v. Salt Lake City. - Utah - , 168 Pac 766; See Dillon, Mun. Corp., Sec.Sec. 1187, 1191, 1194.

97. Fort Smith v. Mekibbin, 41 Ark. 45, 48 Am. Rep. 19: Axmear v. Richards, 112 Iowa, 657, 84 N. W. 686; Covington v. Mcnickles's Heirs, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 262; Pastnrino v. City of Detroit, 182 Mich. 5, 148 N. W. 231; Wayzata v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 50 Minn. 438, 52 N. W. 913; St. Charles County v. Powell, 22 Mo. 525. 66 Am. Dec. 637; Meyer v. City of Lincoln, 33 Neb. 566, 18 L. R. A. 146, 29 Am. St. Rep. 500, 50 N. W. 763: Oxford Township v. Columbia. 38 Ohio St. 87; Ostrom v. City of San Antonio, 77 Tex. 345, 14 S. W. 66.

98. Simplot v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 16 Fed. 350; Ames v. City of San Diego, 101 Cal. 390, 35 Pac. 100

Robinson v. Lemp, 29 Idaho, 661. 161 Pac. 1024; City of Chicago v. Middlebrooke, 143 111. 265, N. E. 457; City of Bedford v. Willard. 133 Ind. 562, 3d Am. St. Rep. 563, 33 N. E. 368; City of New Orleans v. Salmen Brick & Lumber Co., 135 La. 828, 66 So 237; In re Willard Parker Hospital. 217 N Y. 1. 1ll N. E. 2 Turner v. Hillsboro, 127 N. C 153, 37 S. E. 191; Board or Supervisors of Tazewell County v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 119 Va. 763. 91 S. E. 124; Gustaveson v. Dwyer, 83 Wash. 303. 145 Par. 458, 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (5th Ed.), 5 1188 et seq.

99. Southern Pac. Co. v. Hyatt, 132 Cal. 240, 54 L. R .A 522, 64 Pac. 272; Mclucaa v St. Joseph, etc., R. Co . 67 Neb. 603, 93 N. W. 928, 97 N. W. 312 2 Ann Cas 715. Conwell v. Philadelphia, etc R. Co, 241 Pa 172. 88 Atl. 117.

1. Mobile & G. R. Co. v. Rutherford, 184 Ala. 204, 63 So. 1003;

St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v Martin. 104 Ark 274, 149 N W. 69; H-linois Cent R. Co. v. Houghton, 126 I11. 233, 18 N. E. 301, 9 Am. St. Rep. 581, l L. R. A. 213;