462 Word v. Box, 66 Tex. 596, 3 S. W. 93; Bailey v. Carleton, 12 N. H. 9.
463 Grimes v. Ragland, 28 Ga. 123; Morris v. Mcclary, 43 Minn. 346, 46 N. W. 238.
464 Humes v. Bernstein, 72 Ala. 546.
465 Wilson v. Henry, 35 Wis. 241; Ewing's Lessee v. Burnet, 11 Pet. 53; Florida S. R. Co. v. Loring, 2 C. C. A. 546, 51 Fed. 932; Huntington v. Allen, 44 Miss. 654; King v. Carmichael, 136 Ind. 20, 35 N. E. 509; Millett v. Lago-marslno (Cal.) 38 Pac. 308; Ponder v. Cheeves, 104 Ala. 307, 16 South. 145.
466 Actual knowledge is always sufficient. Dausch v. Crane, 109 Mo. 323, 19 S. W. 61; Brown v. Cockerel, 33 Ala. 38.
467 Musick v. Barney, 49 Mo. 458; Bailey v. Carleton, 12 N. H. 9.
468 Cutter v. Cambridge, 6 Allen (Mass.) 20; Allen v. Allen, 58 Wis. 205, 16
469 Thompson v. Burhans, 61 N. Y. 52; Beatty v. Mason, 30 Md. 409.
§ 281) entry on the lands under a void deed sufficient unless it is brought to the notice of the owner by the deed being recorded, or in some other way.470 If a tenant attorns to one claiming adversely and gives that as a reason for refusing to pay rent to the true owner, the latter has notice of the adverse claim471 In one case472 it was said: "If the owner visit his land, the indications of adverse possession and claim should be so patent that he could not be deceived. In this case, if the owner should have visited this land, he might have seen wood cut and rails split and hauled off,-pretty good indications of trespass; but he would have seen no habitation, no inclosures, no fields; nothing, indeed, to advise him that an adverse claim was set up, that some one was disputing his title." The payment of taxes is not sufficient to constitute an adverse holding.473
Possession must he Hostile and Adverse.
It must also be shown that the possession of the disseisor is hostile and adverse to the true owner, and not subordinate to him 474 There need not, however, be a distinct claim of right or title by the disseisor.475 Whether or not the possession has been adverse is a question of fact in each case.476 Where adjoining owners establish a fence between their lands for convenience, without reference to the true line, and possession is held by each up to the fence so established, such possession will not be treated as adverse, and no disseisin will occur, though the fence be not on the true line.477 It is
N. W. 610. And see Leeper v. Baker, 68 Mo. 400. Living in a shanty on wild land while cutting timber has been held insufficient Mckinnon v. Meston (Mich.) 62 N. W. 1014.
470 Bracken v. Jones, 63 Tex. 184.
471 2 Dembitz, Land Tit. 1391.
472 Pike v. Robinson, 79 Mo. 615.
473 Brown v. Rose, 48 Iowa, 231; Scott v. Mills, 49 Ark. 266, 4 S. W. 908. 474 Chloupek v. Perotka, 89 Wis. 551, 62 N. W. 537; Cook v. Babcock, 11
Cush. (Mass.) 206; Jackson v. Berner, 48 111. 203; Sparrow v. Hovey, 44 Mich. 63, 6 N. W. 93; Washburn v. Cutter, 17 Minn. 361 (Gil. 335).
475 Puckett v. Mcdaniel, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 630, 28 S. W. 360. But there must be, at least, a general claim of ownership. Kirkman v. Brown, 93 Tenn. 476, 27 S. W. 709; Wade v. Johnson, 94 Ga. 34S, 21 S. E. 509.
476 Cummings v. Wyman, 10 Mass. 465; Blackmore v. Gregg, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 182; Highstone v. Burdette, 54 Mich. 329, 20 N. W. 64. That adverse possession is a question of law, see Jackson v. Huntington, 5 Pet. 402.
477 Bird v. Stark, 66 Mich. 654, 33 N. W. 754; Goltermann v. Schiermeyer,
464 title. (Ch. 16 held that if one in possession of land sues another for trespass, tills is evidence of an adverse holding against the owner of the land.478 So declarations by the disseisor that his holding is adverse to the owner arc admissible.479 When entry has been made under the owner, possession so acquired is not adverse.480 For example, when an entry was made under a bond for a deed, no adverse possession would be acquired while the purchase price remains unpaid.481 To make possession obtained under the owner adverse, there must be a subsequent disclaimer of the owner's title, and the disclaimer must be made known to the owner.482 Whenever a person having a right to land enters, such entry is presumed to be under the existing right, and not as a disseisor.483 But when one has entered under a conveyance of the fee by a life tenant, and continues in possession after the latter's death, his possession is adverse to the remainder-man.484 We have already seen that possession by a co-tenant is not adverse to the other owners,485 though it may be made so by an actual ouster of the co-tenants, and a denial of their title.486 A deed by a joint owner of the whole of the premises to a stranger is not a disseisin unless there is an entry under the deed.487 Possession In any case without claim of title does not give rise to any title in the occupant, though it be continued for the statutory period.488 The taking of a deed by the disseisor from the disseisee before the bar of the statute of limitations is complete will interrupt its running.489 One who takes possession of land for the purpose of becoming the owner by adverse holding is entitled to the statutory bar if his possession is continued the necessary number of years.490
111 Mo. 404, 19 S. W. 484, and 20 S. W. 161; Grube y. Wells, 34 Iowa, 148. But see Seymour v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81, 16 N. W. 495; Ramsey v. Glenny, 45 Minn. 401, 48 N. W. 322; Smith v. Mckay, 30 Ohio St. 409; French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439.
478 Hollister v. Young, 42 Vt. 403.
479 But see Lynde v. Williams, 68 Mo. 360.
480 Hoban v. Cable, 102 Mich. 206, 60 N. W. 466; Coleman v. Pickett, 82 Hun, 2S7, 31 N. Y. Supp. 480; Whiting v. Edmunds, 94 N. Y. 309; Campbell v. Shipley, 41 Md. 81; Abbey Homestead Ass'n v. Willard, 48 Cal. 614. But see Sands v. Hughes, 53 N. Y. 287.
481 Tayloe v. Dugger, 66 Ala. 444; Knox v. Hook, 12 Mass. 329; Brown v. King, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 173; Harris v. Richey, 56 Pa. St. 395; Rigor v. Frye, 62 111. 507. But see Jackson v. Foster, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 488.