Co. v. Pearce, 192 Ala. 195, 68 So. 900; Botsford v. Eyraud, 148 Cal. 431, 83 Pac. 1008; Downing v. Mayes, 153 111. 330, 46 Am. St. Rep. 896, 38 N. E. 620; Butt v. Houser - (Ky.) - 188 S. W. 628; Mclellan v. Mcfadden, 114 Me. 242, 95 Atl. 1025; Ford v. Wilson, 35 Miss. 490; Hunter v. Pinnell, 193 Mo. 142, 91 S. W. 472; Pease v. Whitney, - N. H.-, 98 Atl. 62; Cross v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 172 N. C. 119, 90 S. E. 14; Hughs v. Pickering, 14 Pa. St. 297; Cathcart v. Matthews, 105 S. C. 329, 89 S. E. 1021; Langdon v. Templeton, 66 Vt. 173, 28 Atl. 866; Chase v. Eddy, 88 Vt 235, 92 Atl. 99.

31. Chastang v. Chastang, 141 Ala. 451, 109 Am. St. Rep. 45, 37 So. 799; Prouty v. Tilden, 164, 111. 163, 45 N. E. 445; Martin v. Hall, 152 Ky. 677, L. R. A.

1918A, 1041, 153 S. W. 997; Batch-elder v. Robbins, 95 Me. 59, 49 Atl. 210; Ballard v. Hansen, 33 Neb. 861, 51 N. W. 295; Clark v. Potter, 32 Ohio St. 49; Workman v. Guthrie, 29 Pa. 495, 62 Am. Dec. 382; Love v. Turner, 78 S. C. 513, 59 S. E. 529; Glover v. Pfeuffer, - Tex. Civ. - , 163 S. W. 984; Zeller v. Martin, 157 Wis. 341, 147 N. W. 371.

32. Western v. Flanagan, 120 Mo. 61, 25 S. W. 531. See 2 Columbia Law Rev. 562; 16 Harvard Law Rev. 224.

33. Taylor v. Dunn, 108 Tex. 337, 193 S. W. 663.

34. See Holliday v. Cromwell, 37 Tex. 437.

35. See Mccolgan v. Langford, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 108, 116; Robinson v. Nordman, 75 Ark. 593, 88 S. W. 592; Thomas v. Spencer, 66 Ore. 359, 133 Pac. 822.

The possessor's recognition of the title of the rightful owner, the statute thereupon ceases to run.36 The possession also ceases to he hostile when the possessor acquires the right of possession, by a conveyance or lease.37 In other words, if after the statute has commenced to run, the person in possession acquires the title to the land, and subsequently disposes thereof, retaining possession, the statutory period must be figured from tlie-time of such separation of the title and the possession. There are occasional decisions or dicta to the effect that the possessor's recognition of the title of the rightful owner is effective for the purpose of negativing the element of hostility although it is communicated, not to the rightful owner himself, but to some third person or persons,38 but the soundness of such a view is, it is submitted, open to question. One who takes possession of another's land without permission from the owner is guilty of a tort regardless of the fad that he concedes

36. Russell v. Erwin, 38 Ala. 44; Trufant v. White, 99 Ala. 526, 13 So. 83; Vittitow v. Burnett, 112 Ark. 277, 1G5 S. W. 625; Lovell v. Frost, 44 Cal. 471; Mcmahill v. Torrence, 163 111. 277, 45 N. E. 269; Litchfield v. Sewell, 97 Iowa, 247, 66 N. W. 104; Pratt v. Ard, 63 Kan. 182, 65 Pac. 255; Ray v. Barker's Heirs, 1 B. Mon. (Ky.) 364; Vaughan v. Bacon, 15 Me. 155; Warren v. Bowdran, 156; Mass. 280, 31 N. E. 300; City of St. Paul v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 63 Minn. 330, 34 L. R. A. 184, 63 N. W. 267, 65 N.w. 649, 68 N. W. 458; Tomlinson v. Lynch, 32 Mo. 160; Stone v. Kansas City & W. B. R. Co., 261 Mo. 61, 169 S. W. 88; Nebra Ry. Co. v. Culver. 35 Neb. 143, 52 N. W. 886; Keneda v. Gard 4 Hill (N. V.) 464; Williams v.

Scott, 122 N. C. 545, 29 S. E. 877; Ingersoll v. Lewis. 11 Pa. St. 212, 51 Am. Dec. 536; Erskine v. North, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 60. Contra, Mcallister v. Hartzell, 60 Ohio St. 69.

That the person in possession instituted a suit for specific performance against the rightful owner was held to involve an admission of the latter's title. Cen tral Pac. Ry. Co. v. Tarpey,- Utah - , 168 Pac. 554.

37. Patton v. Smith, 171 Mo. 231, 71 S. W. 187;Joy v. Pale-tborpe, 77 Ore. 552,152 Pac. 230.

38. Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Kee-gan,185 I11. 70, 56 N. E. 1088 Patterson v. Reigle, 4 Pa . 201 Whitaker v. Thayer, 38 Texciv. 537, 86 S. W. 364; City of Cleveland v. Cleveland . C., C. & St. L

Ry. Co 93 Fed 113 ; And see cases cited ante, Sec. 504 note 84; the other's title, and such other should be excused from the obligation of asserting his title within the statutory period only when the possessor acknowledges his title by direct communication, and the latter is thereby induced to refrain from asserting his title.

- Effect of offer to purchase. Whether, in a particular case, there was such a recognition of the rightful title as to change the character of the possession, would seem ordinarily to be a question of fact, but the courts have tended to discuss it as a matter of law, particularly with reference to the question whether the person in possession may offer to purchase from the rightful owner, without thereby recognizing the latter's title. The proper distinction would seem to be that between an offer to purchase the land, and an offer to purchase immunity from litigation, and that such is the distinction is recognized in a number of cases.39 In some cases, on the other hand, such a distinction appears to be ignored, and an offer to purchase from the rightful owner is regarded as necessarily involving a recognition of the latter's title.40

- Effect of contract or conveyance. The fact that the wrongful possessor actually contracts to pursee also Bryan v. Atwater, 5 Day, 181; Bank v. Wilson, 10 Watts, 261; Mcallister v. Hartzell, 60 Ohio St. 69, 13 N. E. 715.

39. Lovell v. Frost, 44 Cal. 471; Central Pacific R. Ca. v. Mead, 63 Cal. 112; Montgomery & Mullen Lumber Co. v. Quimby, 164 Cal. 250, 128 Pac. 402; Chapin v. Hunt, 40 Mich. 595; Walbrun v. Ballen, 68 Mo. 164; Oldig v. Fisk, 53 Neb. 156, 73 N. W. 661 {semble); Chambers v. Bessent, 17 N. Mex. 487, 134 Pac. 237; Headrick v. Fritts, 93 Tenn. 270, 24 S. W. 11; Meyer v. Hope, 101 Wis. 123, 77 N. W. 720; Clithero v. Fenner, 122 Wis. 356, 106, Am.

St. Rep. 978, 99 N. W. 1027.

40. Litchfield v. Sewell, 97 Iowa, 247, 66 N. W. 104; Gay v. Moffitt, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 506, 5 Am. Dec. 633; Moore v. Moore, 21 Me. 350; Croze v. Quincy Mining Co., 199 Mich. 515, 165 N. W. 786; Jackson v. Britton, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 507; Truman v. Raybuck, 207 Pa. St. 357, 56 Atl. 944.