73. See Butler v. Butler, 133 Ala. 377, 32 So. 579; Wyatt v. Elam, 23 Ga. 201; Hume v. Hopkins, 140 Mo. 65, 41 S. W. 784.

74. See Ellsworth v. Hale, 33 Ark. 633; Brettman v. Fischer, 216 111. 142, 74 N. E. 777: Wells v. Head, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 170;

Hunt v. Hunt, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 175, 37 Am. Dec. 130; O'bryan v. Allen, 108 Mo. 227, 32 Am. St. Rep. 595, 18 S. W. 892; Haggard v. Martin, - Tex. Civ. App. - , 34 S. W. 660.

75. Lane v. Copley, 1 Root (Conn.) 68; New Haven Trust Co. v. Camp, 81 Conn. 539, 71 Atl. 788; Roberts v. Roberts, 2 Mccord L. (S. C.) 268, 13 Am. Dee. 721.

76. Wilson v. Campbell, 119 Ind. 286, 21 N. E. 893. Cyrus v. Holbrook, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 466, 106 S. W. 300; Malone v. Malone. 88 not adverse to the latter.77 But it may be questioned whether there is properly any such presumption. The relationship is merely one of the considerations tending to show that the possession is permissive, and the weight to be imputed to this consideration would vary with the age of the child and the other circumstances of the case.78 The courts, however, while recognizing that the parent's possession may be adverse to the children,79 have occasionally tended to give considerable weight to the relationship as showing the contrary.80 And they ordinarily hold that the statute does not run in favor of a surviving parent as against his children, some or all of whom are minors at the time of his entry, he being in such case regarded as upon the land in the capacity of natural guardian or bailiff.81

- (m) Husband and wife. At common law, as between husband and wife, even though one were in the

Minn. 418, 93 N. W. 605; Grimes v. Bryan, 149 N. C. 248, 63 S. E. 106. Contra, Boykin v. Smith, 65 Ala. 294.

77. O'boyle v. Mchugh, 66 Minn. 390, 69 N. W. 37; Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199, 90 N. W. 390; Roberts v. Roberts, 2 Mc-cord L. (S. Car.) 268, 13 Am. Dec. 721.

78. See Silva v. Winpenny, 136 Mass. 253; Gifford v. Gifford, 100 Mich. 258, 58 N. W. 1000; Allen v. Allen, 58 Wis. 202, 210, 16 N. W. 610; Dunham v. Townshend, 118 N. Y. 281, 23 N. E. 367; 10 Harv. Law Rev. 376; 24 Harv. Law Rev. 495.

79. Mccarty v. Colton, 134 Iowa, 658, 108 N. W. 217; Fox v. Windes, 127 Mo. 502, 48 Am. St. Rep. 648, 30 S. W. 323; Clark v. Lane, 2 N. J. L. 417; Livingston v. Pendergast. 34 N. H. 544: Scarboro v. Scarboro, 122 N. C.

234, 29 S. E. 352; Douglas v. Irvine, 126 Pa. 643, 17 Atl. 802.

80. White v. White, 52 Ark. 188, 12 S. W. 201; Reed v. Smith, 125 Cal. 491, 58 Pac. 139; Tully v. Tully, 137 Oil. 60, 69 Pac. 700; Parker v. Salmons, 101 Ga. 160, 65 Am. St. Rep. 291, 28 S. E. 681; Horn v. Metzger, 234 111. 240, 84 N. E. 893; Kirby v. Kirby, 236 111. 255, 86 N. E. 259; Nugent v. Peterman, 137 Mich. 646, 100 N. W. 895; Allen v. Allen, 58 Wis. 202, 16 N. W. 610.

81. Mcqueen v. Fletcher, 77 Ga. 444; Wilson v. Sutton, - Ky. -, 154 S. W. 394; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 126 Mich. 217, 85 N. W. 576; Livingston v. Pendergast, 34 N. H. 544; Lawrence v. Lawrence, 14 Ore. 77, 12 Pac. 307; Cook v. Nicholas, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 331; Hall & Mathias, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 331; Clark v. Trindle, 52 Pa. St. 492; Searle v. Laraway, exclusive occupation of the other's land, the statute could not run, since they were regarded as constituting but one person.82 But in so far as this common-law doctrine has been altered by modern legislation, there seems to be no reason why the statute should not run in favor of one as against the other, provided the former is in exclusive possession of the other's land, and his possession is hostile or adverse to the other.83 And there is obviously, after a divorce has taken place, no such identity of persons as can prevent the running of the statute.84

When the husband and wife live together on land belonging to the one or the other of them, the possession is ordinarily in the one who has the legal title, and the other is in the position of a licensee, and the statute will consequently not run in favor of the latter as against the former.85 But there are oc27 R. I. 557, 65 Atl. 269; Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Kay & J. 79; Howard v. Shrewsbury, .L. R. 17 Eq. 397; In ,re Hobbs, 36 Ch. Div. 553.

82. See Bell v. Bell, 37 Ala. 536; Skinner v. Hale, 76 Conn. 223: Mcarthur v. Egleson. 3 Ont. Appr 577. In Cervantes v. Cervantes, - Tex. Civ. App - , 76 S. W. 790, it was decided that the wife's possession was, under the community system there in force, the possession of the husband, so that she conld not acquire his property .by adverse possession, even though deserted by him.

83. See Trammel v. Craddock. 93 Ala. 450, 9 So. 815; Lide v. Park, 135 Ala. 131, 93 Am. St. Rep. 17, 33 So. 175; Evans v. Russ. 131 Ark. 335. 198 S. W. 518; Union Oil Co. v. Stewart. 158 Cal. 149, 110 Pac. 313; Warr v. Honeck, 8 Utah, 61, 29 Pac. 1117.

84. Ross v. Mccann, 145 Mo. 271. 46 S. W. 955; Ferring v. Fleischman - (Tenn.) - 39 S. W. 19; Kelly v. Kelly. - Tenn. -. 58 S. W. 870. See House v. Williams, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 122, 40 S. W. 414.

85. Gafford v. Strauss, 89 Ala. 2S3 7, L. R A. 568, 18 Am. St. Rep. Ill, 7 So. 248; Stiff v. Cobb, 126 Ala. 381, 85 Am. St. Rep. 38. 28 So. 402; Tumlin v. Tumlin, 195 Ala. 457, 70 So. 254; Mauldin v. Cox, 67 Cal. 387, 391, 7 Pac. 264; Bias v. Reed. 169 Cal. 387, 145 Pac. 516; Green v. Jones, 169 Ky. 146. 183 S. W. 488; Claughton v. Claughton, 70 Miss. 384, 12 So. 340; Boynton v. Miller, 144 Mo. 681, 46 S. W. 754; Hovorka v. Havlik. 68 Neb. 14, 110 Am. St. Rep. 3S7, 93 N. W. 990; Springer v. Young, 14 Ore. 280, 12 Pac. 400: Reagle v. Reagle. 179 Pa. St. 89, 36 Atl. 191; Berry v. Wied513] Adverse Possession. 2027 casional decisions to the apparent effect that if the wife has color of title to the land, the statute will run in her favor as against the husband, he not asserting his title.86

In so far as the legal identity of husband and wife is still recognized, it does not seem that the mere fact of the husband's wrongful abandonment of the wife should enable the wife to acquire title to his land by the statute of limitations,87 but there are occasional suggestions, judicial and extra judicial, that the fact of desertion may have an effect in this regard,88 apart from that of giving to the wife the possession which, before the departure of the husband, was presumably in him as having the legal title.

Man, 40 W. Va. 36, 52 Am. St. Rep. 866, 20 S. E. 817.

86. Hartmau v. Nettles, 64 Miss. 495, 8 So. 234; Massey v. Rimmer, 69 Miss. 667, 13 So. 832; Mcpherson v. Mcpherson, 75 Xeb. 830, 121 Am. St. Rep. 835, 106 N. W. 991; Potter v. Adams, 125 Mo. 118. 46 Am. St. Rep. 478, 28 S. W. 490 (semble). See Mattes v. Hall. 21 Cal. 352, 132 Pac. 295.

87. See Mcarthur v. Egleson. 3 Ont. App. 577; Cervantes v. Cervantes - (Tex. Civ. App.) - , 76 S. W. 790.

88. Union Oil Co. v. Stewart, 158 Cal. 149, 110 Pac. 313: Warr v. Honeck, 8 Utah, 61, 29 Pac. 1117. (invalid divorce). Editorial notes, 10 Columbia Law Rev. ,75; 24 Harvard Law Rev. 316.