Where the possessions of successive adverse cocupants hold continuously for successive periods of adverse occupation, their holdings may be tacked to each other when each occupant takes under the next preceding occupant by descent, will, grant, or by voluntary transfer of possession.57

In order that possession of successive occupants may be tacked it is essential that privity either of contract, estate, or blood, should exist between the successive occupants.58

The entry of the succeeding occupant must be with the consent of his predecessor, evidenced by contract or by an act of law passing the estate from the latter to the former.59

Privity is necessary in order that the successive possessions may be connected with each other,60 but the following statute in Michigan has dispensed with the necessity of privity be-

55. Compiled Laws 1915, Section 12321.

56. "Within fifteen years in all other cases, provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to actions brought by any municipal corporation, for the recovery of the possession of any public highway, street, or alley, or any other public grounds." Section 12311, Compiled Laws 1915.

57. Gates Mich. Real Property. 657.

58. Sheldeon v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 161 Mich. 503.

59. Shaw v. Nicholay, 30 Mo. 99.

60. Sawyer v. Kendall, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 241.

tween successive occupants under certain circumstances.61 The statute provides: "That no person shall commence an action for the recovery of lands nor make any entry thereupon unless within twenty years after the right to make such entry or bring such action first accrued, or within twenty-five years after he, or those from, by or under whom he claims, shall have been seized or possessed of the premises," and it was held that the land-owner is barred by the lapse of twenty-five years, although there may have been no privity between successive disseizors in possession of the property during the twenty-five years, but to be barred in twenty years there must be privity between the successive disseizors.62

Privity exists between vendor and vendee such as will authorize the tacking of their successive possession in the vendees.63 The fact that the deed was not recorded,64 or that the vendor remains in possession,65 or the vendee did not receive the deed at the time of the purchase, if he took possession on that date, will not affect the operation of the rule.66

A purchaser of land at a judicial sale may tack his possession to that of the person whose land is so sold to make up the statutory period,67 but the sale must rest on a valid decree, judgment or order.68

Where the vendor permits the vendee in a contract of purchase to take possession, the occupancy of the vendee inures to the benefit of the vendor for the purpose of perfecting title of the latter by adverse possession and may be tacked to his possession to perfect title in him.69 The possession of such vendee cannot be tacked to that of his grantee to make up the

61. Rev. Stat. Mich. (1838) pp. 573, 574, Sec. 1; re-enacted in Comp. Laws Mich. 1915, Sec. 12311, changing the period to fifteen years.

62. Riopelle v. Gilman, 23 Mich. 33; Vincent v. City of Kalamazoo, 111 Mich. 230.

63. Gildea v. Warren, 173 Mich. 28.

64. North Pac. R. Co. v. Concan-non, 75 Wash, 591 (135 Pac. 652).

65. Clithero v. Fenner, 122 Wis.

356, 99 N. W. 1027; Whiteford v. Crooks, 54 Mich. 261.

66. Barron v. Barron (Ala.), 25 La. 55.

67. Peele v. Chener (Mass.), 8 Allen 89; Martenson v. Murphy, 153. Wis. 389 (191 N. W. 273).

68. Callier v. Couts, 92 Tex. 234; 47 S. W. 525.

69. Sargent v. Ballard (Mass.), 9 Pick; 251; Rodgers v. Beckwith, 172 Mich. 544.

statutory period for the purpose of perfecting title by adverse possession in the vendee,70 but in Michigan by statute a vendee may secure a title by adverse possession where he claims under a contract of purchase, having been in possession for a period of twenty years after the last payment was due on the contract or after the last payment was made on the contract of purchase.71

A landlord may tack the possession of his several tenants where it appears there was continued possession of the tenants.72

Privity exists between two successive holders where the latter takes under the earlier by descent.73 In Michigan the statute provides that if the right or title of the person bringing an action for the recovery of lands first accrued to an ancestor, predecessor or grantor, of the person bringing the action, the period of limitation is to be computed when the right or title so first accrued to the ancestor, etc.74

The possession of an administrator, where he has the legal right to possession of the intestate's real estate,75 or the trustee of a bankrupt, may be tacked to complete the bar to the statute of limitations.76

If a mortgagor, who is in adverse possession, orally transfers his occupancy to his mortgagee, the two possessions may be tacked.77

Where a claimant to property had sold the same in contract to successive purchasers who forfeited their rights and to whose possession the claimnat from time to time succeeded, he thereby became entitled to tack their possessions to his own, in order to make out his title by adverse possession.78

70. Plumer v. Brown, 8 Metc (Mass.) 578.

71. Comp. Laws Mich. 1915, Sec. 12314.

72. Murphy v. Com., 187 Mass. 361; 73 N. E. 524.

73. Trast v. Courtis, 172 Mass. 401, 52 N. E. 515.

74. Comp. Laws Mich. 1915, Sec. 12312.

75. Ricker v. Butler, 45 Minn. 545, 48 N. W. 407.

76. Cannon v. Prude (Ala.), 62 So.

24.

77. Harrison v. Spencer, 110 Mich. 215.

78. Meritt v. Westerman, 165 Mich. 535.

Where successive grantees of land take possession of a strip of land adjoining that described in their deeds claiming title thereto under their deeds, their successive adverse possession may be tacked to make out the statutory period.79

Possession of a strip of land by a tenant inures to the benefit of his landlord, and cannot be tacked on to his occupancy as owner, after his purchase from the landlord of adjoining land, for the purpose of establishing title by adverse possession.80

Separate successive disseizins cannot be tacked so as to constitute one and a single continuous possession, unless there is privity of estate, he cannot have the benefit of the grantor's possession of lands which are not conveyed by the deed.81