10. Easter v. Overlea Land Co. of Baltimore County, 129 Md. 627, 99 Atl. 893; State v.

Result of the cases would seem to be that, while travel over the land need not be frequent, it must not be confined to persons who can be identified or segregated from the members of the community as a whole, that is, user by the public does not mean user by certain specific members of the public.

- (c) Adverseness of user. In order to establish a highway by prolonged user of the land for highway purposes, the user must be adverse,11 and the expression "adverse" in this connection presumably means the same as in connection with the doctrines of adverse possession and prescription for private rights of user, a lack of recognition of any right in the landowner ever to put an end to it. When the user is not adverse, that is, when the user is accompanied by recognition of such right in the landowner, the latter has no reason to interfere with the user, and consequently no inference of a right of user should be drawn from his failure to do so. Furthermore, the very idea of a user for highway purposes invoves a negation of the right in the landowner to put an end to such user. That the user is by permission shows that the user is not adverse,12 it

Lucas, 124 N. Car. 804, 32 S. E. 553; Stotts v. Dichdel, 70 Ore. 86, 139 Pac. 932, 933; Witter v. Harvey, 1 Mccord, L. (S. C.) 67, 10 Am. Dec. 650.

11. District of Columbia v. Robinson, 180 U. S. 92, 45 L. Ed. 440, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 512; City of Chicago v. Borden, 190 111. 430, 60 N. E. 915; Ladd v. Osborne, 79 Iowa, 93, 44 N. W. 235; Mayberry v. Standisb, 56 Me. 432; Johanson v. Boston & A. R. Co., 153 Mass. 79, 26 N. E. 238; Slater v. Gunn, 170 Mass. 509, 41 L. R. A. 268, 49 N. E. 1017; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Crown Point, 150 Ind. 536, 50 N. E.

741; Stickley v. Scdus Tp., 131 Mich. 510, 59 L. R. A. 287, 91 N. W. 745; Hamilton v. Village of Owego, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 312, 59 N. Y. Supp. 103; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. C. 487, 55 Am. Rep. 618.

That, under certain statutory provisions as to highways by user, the user need not be adverse, see Strong v. Mckeever, 102 Ind. 578, 1 N. E. 502, 4 N. E. 11; Wellsville v. Hallock, (N. Y. Misc.), 139 N. Y. Supp. 961; Bolger v. Foss, 65 Cal. 250, 3 Pac. 871 (semble).

12. Jones v. Bright, 140 Ala. 268, 37 So. 79; Olson v. People, 56 Colo. 199, 138 Pac. 21; Chinecessarily involving a recognition of such right in the landowner.

The recognition of the landowner's right to stop the user being an affirmative fact, it is, it seems, for him to show it, that is, the user of land by the public may, in the ordinary case, be presumed to be adverse,1" in the absence of circumstances tending to show the contrary. A contrary presumption, however, that the user is permissive, is generally recognized in the case of wild or unoccupied land, especially if unenclosed.14 cago v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 152 111. 561, 38 N. E. 768; Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. v. City of Seymour, 154 Ind. 17, 55 N. E. 953; Moffatt v. Kenny, 174 Mass. 311, 54 N. E. 850; Weihe v. Macatawa Resort Co., 198 Mich. 334, 164 N. W. 510; State v. Fisher, 117 N. C. 733, 23 S. E. 158; Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Ore. 438, 63 Pac. 614; Ferdinando v. City of Scranton, 190 Pa. St. 321, 42 Atl. 692; Gaines v. Merryman, 95 Va. .660, 29 S. E. 738; Fitts v. County, 78 Wash. 238, 138 Pac. 885.

13. Carter v. Walker, 186 Ala. 140, 65 So. 170, 171 (but see Jones v. Bright, 140 Ala. 268, 37 So. 79; Belleview Cemetery Co. v. Mcevers, 168 Ala. 535, 53 So. 272); Hartley v. Vermillion, 141 Cal. 339, 74 Pac. 987 (semble); Thorworth v. Scheets 269 111. 573, 110 N. E. 42; Southern Indiana R. Co. v. Norman, 165 Ind. 126, 74 N. E. 896; Meade v. Topeka, 75 Kan. 61, 88 Pac. 574; Jefferson v. Callahan, 153 Ky. 38, 154 S. W. 898; Canton Co. of Baltimore v. Mayor, etc., of City of Baltimore 104 Md. 582, 65 Atl. 324; Brandt v. Olson, 79 Neb. 612, 113 N. W. 151

{semble); White v. Town of Edenton, 171 N. C. 21, 86 S. E. 170; Earle v. Poat, 63 S. C. 439, 41 S. E. 525; Hanson v. Taylor, 23 Wis. 547.

14. Brumley v. State, 83 Ark. 236, 103 S. W. 615; Ely v. Parsons, 55 Conn. 83, 10 Atl. 499; O'connell v. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co., 184 111. 308, 56 N. E. 355; State v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 45 Iowa, 139; State v. Horn, 35 Kan. 717, 12 Pac. 148; Potter v. Magruder, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 76, 97 S. W. 732; May-berry v. Standish, 56 Me. 342; Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358, 69 N. W. 970; Hutto v. Tindall, 6 Rich. Law, 396; State v. Rodman, 86 S. Car. 154, 68 S. E. :;43; Mckinney v. Duncan, 121 Tenn. 265, 118 S. W. 683; Cunningham v. San Saba County, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 480, 20 S. W. 941; Watson v. Board of Com'rs of Adams County, 38 Wash. 662, 80 Pac. 201; Board of Com'rs of Sheridan County v. Patrick, 18 Wyo. 130, 104 Pac. 531, 107 Pac. 748. So, it seems, in the case of an open common in a town. Mckay v. Reading, 184 Mass. 140, 68 N. E. 43; Langley v. Gallipolis, 2 Ohio St. 107.

And if there is already a private way, which is open to the use of the public, the public use thereof, to a limited extent at least, cannot be presumed to be adverse, in the absence of anything to show that it is so.15 The fact that there was an ineffectual attempt to dedicate does not make the user by the public permissive,16 the case being analogous to that of an individual claiming under an invalid grant of an easement.17 And likewise the public user is adverse if based on a defective proceeding for the establishment of a highway.18

- (d) Necessity of claim of right. It is frequently said that the user must be under a claim of right in the public,19 but it may be questioned whether this means anything more than that it must be ad15. Shellhouse v. State, 110 Ind. 509, 11 N. E. 484; Sprow v. Boston & A. 'r. Co., 163 Mass. 330, 39 N. E. 1024; Aikens v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 188 Mass. 547, 74 N. E. 929; Stickley v. Sodus, T. P., 131 Mich. 510, 59 L. R. A. 287, 91 N. W. 745; Speir v. Town of Utrecht, 121 N. Y. 420, 24 N. E. 692; Cincinnati & M. V. R. Co. v. Rose-ville, 76 Ohio St. 108, 81 N. E. 178; Bohrnstedt Co. v. Scharen, 60 Ore. 349, 119 Pac. 337; Root v. Comm. 98 Pa. St. 170, 42 Am. Rep. 614; Frye v. Village of Highland, 109 Wis. 292, 85 N. W. 351.