Thereof, which is ordinarily adverse to the grantor.70 The user of the land under such circumstances involves no recognition of any right as remaining in the grantor.

The user of one piece of land for the benefit of another piece cannot be adverse so long as both are in the possession of the same person, since in such case whatever user is made of either by the person in possession is to be imputed to the fact of possession.70a

A tenant under a lease cannot, it has been decided, acquire by prescription a right in land, near the demised premises, which also belongs to the landlord, whether this neighboring land is or is not in the possession of a tenant under a lease.71 Since the right

Davis, 41 Utah, 200, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 89, 125 Pac. 403; Le-hman v. Mills, 46 Wash. 624, 13 L, R.

A. (N. S.) 990, 13 Ann. Cas. 923, 91 Pac. 11. Contra, semble,. Wiseman v. Lucksinger, 84 N. Y. 31, 38, Am. Rep. 479; Long v. May-berry, 96 Tenn. 378, 36 S. W. 1040.

70. Ante Sec. 513(e), note 20. 70a. Battishill v. Reed, 18 C.

B. 696; Onley v. Gardiner, 4 M. & W. 496; Damper v. Bassett (1901) 2 Ch. 350; Outram v. Maude, 17 Ch. Div. 391, 405; Barker v. Mobile Elec. Co., 173 Ala. 28, 55 So. 364; Hickox v. Parmelee, 21 Conn. 86; Broom v. Gizzard, 136 Ga. 297, 71 S. E. 430; Williams v. Deskins, 179 Ky. 61, 200 S. W. 1; Pierce v. Fernald, 26 Me. 436, 46 Am. Dec. 573; Murphy v. Welch, 128 Mass. 489; Vossen v. Dautel, 116 Mo. 379, 22 S. W. 734; Stuyvesant v. Woodruff, 21 N. J. L. 133, 47 Am. Dec. 156; Stevens v. Dennett, 51 N. H. 324; Wells v. Parker, 74 N H. 193, 66 Atl.

121; Phillips v. Phillips, 48 Pa. St. 178, 86 Am. Dec. 577; Payne v. Williams, 2 Spears L. (S. C.) 15; Crosland v. Rogers, 32 S. C. 130; Sasman v. Collins, - (Tex. Civ. App.), 115 S. W. 337; Mabie v. Matteson, 17 Wis. 1; In Franz v. Mendonca, 131 Cal. 205, 63 Pac. 361, it is said that the user continues to be adverse although the same person is in possession under leases of both properties. This is, it is submitted, erroneous. See also Gerstner v. Payne, - (Mo. App.) - , 142 S. W. 794, and Rogers v. Flick, 144 Ky. 844, 139 S, W. 1098, criticized in editorial note, 10 Mich. Law Rev. 236.

71. Gayford v. Moffatt, 4 Ch. App. 133; Kilgour v. Gaddes, (1904) 1 K. B. 457; Kuhlman v. Hecht, 77 111. 570; Brown v. Dickey, 106 Me. 97, 75 Atl. 382; Vossen v. Dautel, 116 Mo. 379, 22 S. W. 734; Stevens v. Dennett, 51 N. H. 324; Phillips v. Phillips, 48 Pa. St. 178, 86 Am. Dec. 577.

Would be acquired by the tenant as appurtenant to the land itself, and so for the benefit of his landlord,72 it would result that the landlord would acquire a right of user against himself, an easement in his own land, a legal impossibility. And moreover the fact that the user of land is made in connection with other land which he holds under a lease from the person who owns both pieces of land is sufficient in itself to show that the user is permissive merely.

Since it is the recognition of a right in the landowner to put an end to the user which deprives the user of the element of adverseness, and such recognition is in its nature an affirmative fact, the burden of proof in reference thereto is properly on the landowner, that is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the user of another's land is ordinarily presumed to be adverse.73 If evidence to the contrary is introduced, the question of the character of the user is obviously one of fact,74 and the burden of proof, in the souse of

72. Ante, Sec. 516, note 22.

73. Polly v. Mccali, 37 Ala. 20; Fleming v. Howard, 150 Cal. 28, 87 Pac. 908; Cheda v. Southern Pac. Co., - (Cal.) - , 134 Pac. 717; Mitchell v. Bain 142 Ind. 604, 42 N. E. 230; Smith v. Ponsford, 184 Ind. 53, 110 N. E. 194; Stewart v. Brumley - (Ky.) -, 119 S. W. 798; Bordes v. Leece, 179 Ky. 655, 201 S. W. 4; Cox v. Forrest, 60 Md. 74; Barnes v. Haynes, 13 Gray (Mass.) 188; White v. Chapin, 12 Allen (Mass.) 516; Berkey & Gay Furniture Co. v. Valley City Milling Co., 194 Mich. 234, 160 N. W. 648; Novinger v. Shoop, - Mo. -, 201 S. W. 64; Moll v. Hagerbaumer, 98 Neb. 555, 153 N. W. 560; Smith v. Putnam, 62 N. H. 369; Clement v. Bettlo, 65 N. J. L. 675, 48 Atl. 567; Hammond v. Zehner, 21 N. Y. 118; American Bank-note Co. v. New York El. R. Co., 129 N. Y. 252, 29 N. E. 302; Pavey v. Vance, 56 Ohio St. 162, 46 N. E. 898; Gardner v Wright, 49 Ore. 609, 91 Pac. 286: Steffey v. Carpenter, 37 Pa. 41; Slater v. Price, 96 S. C. 245, 80 S. E. 372; Dodge v. Stacy, 39 Vt. 558; Muncy v. Up-dyke, 119 Va. 636, 89 S. E. 884: Lechman v. Mills, 46 Wash. 624, 91 Pac. 11, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 990, 13 Am: Cas. 923; Iktwkina v. Conner, 75 W. Va. 220, 83 S. E. 982; Carmody v. Mulrooney, 87 Wis. 552, 58 N. W. 1109.

74. Thomas v. England, 71 Cal. 456, 12 Pac. 491; Humphrey v. Blasingame, 104 Cal. 10. 37 Pac. 804; Hill v. Crosby, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 466, 13 Am. Dec. Bigelow Carpet Co v. Wiggin, 209

2 R. P. - 54 risk of non persuasion of the jury,75 is, as regards the adverse character of the user as well as the other elements of prescription, upon the person asserting the prescriptive right.76

While ordinarily, as above stated, the user of another's land is presumed to be adverse, such a presumption does not exist, it seems, in the case of unenclosed land or, as it may be otherwise expressed, evidence that the land is unenclosed is sufficient to rebut the presumption.77 And it has been decided that when one throws his land open to the use of the public, or of his neighbors generally, a user thereof by a neighboring landowner, however frequent, will be presumed to be permissive and not adverse, in the absence of any attendant circumstances indicative of the contrary.78 And it has been said that if the propriemass. 542, 95 N. E. 938; Burn-ham v. Mcquesten, 48 N. H. 446; Iselin v. Starin, 144 N. Y. 453, 39 N. E. 488; Bennett v. Biddle, 140 Pa. 396, 21 Atl. 363.

75. 4 Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 2485.

76. District of Columbia v. Robinson, 180 U. S. 92, 45 L. Ed. 440; Clarke v. Clarke, 133 Cal. 667, 66 Pac. 10; Barlow v. Frink, 171 Cal. 165, 152 Pac. 290; Shea v. Gavitt, 89 Conn. 359, L. R. A. 1916A, 689, 94 Atl. 360; Rollins v. Blackden, 112 Me. 459, 92 Atl. 521; Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 283, 48 L. R. A. 711, 53 S. W. 907; Barber v. Bailey, 86 Vt. 219, 84 Atl. 608, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 98; St. Martin v. Skamania Boom Co., 79 Wash. 393, 140 Pac. 355; Crosier v. Brown, 66 W. Va. 273, 25 L. R. A. N. S. 174, 66 S. E. 326.