The subject of adverse possession as applied to wild, vacant and unoccupied land is more difficult than as applied to occupied and improved lands. But the difference is in the nature of the acts required by law and the amount of evidence necessary to prove adverse possession. This is caused by the fact that in the case of unoccupied and unimproved lands, as can be plainly seen, it would require different acts and plainer ever rule is adopted, the full statutory period has run against complainants, for it must be conceded that before the expiration of the 15 years a prudent man, reasonably attentive to his own interests, ought to have discovered that defendants' grantors had asserted an exclusive right to his parcel of land." Fuller v. Swensberg, 106 Mich. 305 (64 N. W. 463, 58 Am. St. Rep. 481); Brigham v. Reau, 139 Mich. 256 (102 N. W. 845); Dubois v. Campau, 28 Mich. 304.

38. Jaspa v. Martin, 161 Mich. 336, cited in Rodgers v. Beckel, 172 Mich. 530.

39. "In every action for the recovery of real estate or the possession thereof, the person establishing the legal title to the premisea shall be presumed to have been in possession thereof within the time limited by law for bringing such action, unless it shall appear that the same has been possessed adversely to such legal title by the defendant or by those from or under whom he claims, or that the grantee, or his assigns, in a contract of purchase have been in possession claiming title by virtue of said contract of purchase for a period of twenty years after the last payment was due on said contract or after the last payment was made on said contract. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any contract of purchase which is now the subject of litigation." Compiled Laws 1915, Sec. 12314.

evidence of the same in order to sufficiently apprize the real owner of such claim of adverse possession. In the case of occupied and improved lands, the actual residence of the claimant and the improvements made by him during the statutory period is plain evidence to the record owner that he claims adversely. Actual residence on the land is sufficient, even without cultivation or improvement.40 But it is plainly evident that where the claimant is not actually residing on the lands, that the nature and amount of evidence necessary to show actual, continued, notorious, distinct and hostile possession would be very different and much more difficult than in the case of occupied lands. To constitute adverse possession it is necessary to show that the acts of ownership were of such character as to openly and publicly indicate an assumed control or use of them as is inconsistent with the owner's claim to the premises in question.41

40. "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 full 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. Law Report 1324.

"To maintain an actual adverse possession to woodland as such it is necessary that the person entering take actual possession by residence or cultivation of a part of the tract to which the woodland belonged. Actual possession may be taken by inclosing and cultivating without residence, or by residence without cultivation, under a bona fide claim, where there is a designation of the boundaries with the ordinary use of the woodland." Dar-rah v. Kadison, 55 Pa. Super. Ct. 335; D. W. Alderman & Sons Co. v. McKnight, 78 S. E. 982, 95 S. Car. 245; Whealton, et al., v. Doughty, 72 S. E. 112, 112 Va. 649.

41. "As a general rule the law will not presume that possession separate from the title to real property is of an adverse character and every presumption favors the construction that it was in subordination to the title of the true owner; there must be proof that the possession was actual, continued, notorious, distinct and hostile." Connor v. Detroit Term. R. Co., 183 Mich. 241; Crosby v. City of Greenville, 183 Mich. 452; Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670.

"Notoriety as to claim of title and possession is for the purpose of showing that the original owner had notice of the claim and possession and of its hostile character and is presumed to have acquiesed in the claim of the possessor; but

As to what acts are sufficient to constitute adverse possession the courts are varied in their opinions, as will be seen by the note below where cases both pro and con are digested.42 where the original owner has actual knowledge of the adverse title and of the hostile possession thereunder, notoriety becomes immaterial, actual knowledge having taken its place." Lasley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244; Courtney v. Ashcraft, 105 S. W. 106, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1324.

42. The requirements of an adverse possession necessary to establish title to real estate are well understood, but the difficulty arises in applying these requirements to the particular case, which, as a rule, must be controlled by its own facts and circumstances." Whitaker v. The Erie Shooting Club, et al., 102 Mich. 454.

"Where the testimony in support of v claim of adverse possession tends to show a continuous use of the land, by cutting the grass and pasturing the cattle thereon each year during the period of occupancy, in addition to planting trees upon the premises, it is a question for the jury whether such occupancy was practically continuous, exclusive, and hostile, and intended to be such by the claimants." Saurs v. Giddings, 90 Mich. 50.

Cases holding that acts of ownership of vacant, wild and unoccupied lands are not sufficient to constitute adverse possession:

Rucker v. Jackson, 60 So. 139, 180 Ala. 109; Lightfoot v. Head, 60 So. 752, 64 Fla. 364.