"Actual inclosure is not necessary to constitute adverse possession. Any occupation, visible and notorious, of which the property is susceptible, and which includes the true owner is sufficient." Holtzman v. Douglas, 5 App. D. C. 397, affirmed (1897) 18 S. Ct. 65, 168 U. S. 278, 42 L. Ed. 466; Pearson v. Adams, 29 So. 977, 129 Ala. 157.

43. Cook v. Clinton, 64 Mich. 309; Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670.

Actually occupancy by the real owner is not essential to adverse possession, if the nature of the occupancy is such that he ought or might have known. Bird v. Stark, 66 Mich. 654.

44. "Adverse possession under the statute must be open, notorious, continuous, exclusive, visible and distinct, as well as adverse. There must be an actual occupancy, as distinguished from constructive possession, of a portion of all of the premises claimed; not necessarily living thereon, for, if the premises are inclosed and cultivated, this would be a sufficient actual ac-cupancy; and if crops were continually grown thereon, this would be a visible occupancy; and though in the interim between harvesting and recropping no person was actually on the land, and nothing done thereon, yet, if such cropping continued from year to year, this would be a continuous and notorious occupancy." Cook v. Clinton, 64 Mich. 309.

adverse possession if the claimant shows by other acts that are certain, and it is not necessary that the actual cultivation of the land be extended to the line claimed, if the acts done make it manifest that he intends to claim to the line.45 But although he may not actually cultivate to such line it is absolutely essential that there be an actual possession of some kind.46

To claim title by adverse possession of wild and unoccupied lands it is not necessary to show that the lands have been cultivated or inclosed by the claimant. Only such acts of possession are required as are consistent with the nature and condition of the land, but they must be of such a nature as should notify the real owner of such possession if he were passing by.47 It is not necessary that they be such as would notify a passing stranger.48 Use of land as a wood lot appurtenant to

45. Sauers v. Giddings, 90 Mich. 50. "Actual physical inclosure by fence is not necessary to title by adverse possession, if the claimant shows his occupancy and claim of title in some other certain way; and it is not necessary that cultivation or improvement extend to the line claimed, if the acts done manifest intent to claim to the line." Lyons v. Fairmont Real Estate Co., 77 S. E. 525, 71 W. Va. 754; Dreger v. Budde, 113 N. W. 950, 133 Wis. 516.

46. Cook v. Clinton, 64 Mich. 309; La Fountain v. Dee, 110 Mich. 347.

47. Crosby v. City of Greenville, 183 Mich. 452. "When one enters upon land under color of title and with claim of ownership, any acts of user which are continuous, and indicate unequivocally to the neighborhood in which the land is situated that it is appropriated exclusively to his individual use and ownership, are sufficient to render the possession adverse." Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670.

Whitaker v. The Erie Shooting Club, et al., 102 Mich. 454; Mer-ritt v. Westerman, 180 Mich. 449. "Where the purchaser of a void tax title upon a piece of wild land took such possession and made such use of the land as was reasonable under the circumstances, but for a period of ten years thereafter did nothing to indicate actual possession to the owner or a stranger passing over the land, he did not obtain title by adverse possession under color of title, though the owner had actual knowledge of his claim." Lasley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244.

48. Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670; Whitaker v. The Erie Shooting Club, et al., 102 Mich. 454; Mer-ritt v. Westerman, 180 Mich. 449. "Title cannot be acquired by adverse possession to land which is in a wild state, vacant and unoccupied, and on which no apparent acts of ownership have been per formed." Haas v. Wilson, 154 Pac. 1018, 97 Kan. 176.

ones farm, and the exercise of ones acts of ownership as are necessary to such use, amount if continuous and uninterrupted, to actual possession.49 The posting of notices around a piece of land from early in the spring until late in the autumn for twelve successive years, that the land belongs to a certain club together with a notice that all trespassers will be prosecuted, are sufficient.50 But such signs must be continuous throughout the period provided by statute.51 The cutting of grass and timber, ditching, paying general and special taxes are sufficient if the same are open, notorious and continuous.52 The possession may be constructive only.53 The masting of hogs thereon or the ranging of cattle, or the conducting of a sugar camp will not of itself be sufficient.54

49. Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670.

50. "That the notices which were posted around the land from early in the spring till late in the fall, every year for twelve successive years, were notices of an adverse title and possession; that the owner, if he had visited the land could not have failed to understand their meaning, as they were inconsistent with his rights as the original owner of the fee." Whitaker v. The Erie Shooting Club, et al., 102 Mich. 454.

51. Whitaker v. The Erie Shooting Club, et al., 102 Mich. 454.

52. "That while it may be conceded that paying taxes, or asserting title, or the common understanding in the neighborhood, or making surveys, or an occasional renting for trapping and shooting was not sufficient to establish title by adverse possession, yet such acts were all competent evidence to be considered in determining the question." Whitaker v. The Erie Shooting Club, et. al., 102 Mich. 454.

Sauers v. Giddings, 90 Mich. 50. "The claim of a tax title is necessarily hostile to that of the original owner," Lasley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244.

53. Cook v. Clinton, 64 Mich. 309; Fuller v. Swensberg, 106 Mich. 305. "Constructive actual possession of lands for the statutory period bars recovery thereof by the title holder as effectively as a purely actual possession." Miniard v. Napier, 180 S. W. 363, 167, Ky. 208.

54. Sauers v. Giddings, 90 Mich. 50. "In order to acquire title by adverse possession as against an elder grant, the party asserting such a title must take actual physical possession of all the land which he proposes to acquire, and hold it adversely, actually, and continuously for the fully statutory period; and the masting of hogs thereon, or the ranging of cattle, or the conducting of a sugar camp, will not constitute such adverse possession within the meaning of the law." Courtney v. Ashcraft, 105 S. W. 106, 31 Ky. Rep. 1324.