In order that the statute of limitations shall run against the right to recover land, it is necessary, not only that the person rightfully entitled be out of the actual possession, but also that there be an entry upon the land by another. The statute does not run as against the true owner in favor of one who, while having what purports to be a conveyance of the land, or other paper title, has never entered on the land.21 Nor is an entry upon the land sufficient in itself, but it must be followed by such acts

18. Post, Sec. 513(g).

19. Post, Sec. 513(a).

20. Co. Litt. 271a.

21. White v. Burnley, 20 How. (U. S.) 235, 15 L. Ed. 886; Ward v. Cochran, 150 U. S. 597, 37 L. Ed. 1195; Lipscomb v. Mcclellan,

72 Ala. 151; Christy v. Spring Valley Water Works, 97 Cal. 21, 31 Pac. 1110; Walker v. Hughes, 90 Ga. 52, 15 S. E. 912; Thayer v. Mcclellan, 23 Me. 417; Word v. Box, 66 Tex. 596, 3 S. W. 93.

What is sufficient to constitute actual possession of the land depends upon the character of the land and all the circumstances of the case.23 It involves, as a general rule, the doing of acts of dominion on the land, sufficiently pronounced and continuous in character to charge the owner with notice that an adverse claim to the land is asserted. Continued residence on the land is no doubt sufficient to show actual possession;24 and cultivation or otherwise improving the land has been regarded as sufficient in particular cases,23 and the erection and maintenance of a fence around the land may, in connection

22. The payment of taxes is not a substitute for possession. Franklin v. Snow, 195 Ala. 569, 71 So. 93; Mitchell v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co., 265 111. 300, 106 N. E. 833; Frazier v. Ison, 161 Ky. 379, 170 S. W. 977; Millett v. Mullen, 95 Me. 400, 49 Atl. 871, Whitman v. Shaw, 166 Mas.. 451, 44 N. E. 333; Young v. Grieb,95 Minn. 396, 104 N. W. 131; Leavenworth v. Reeves, 106 Miss. 722, 64 So. 660; Hays v. Pumphrey, 226 Mo. 119, 125 S. W. 1109.

23. The matter is well discussed in 2 Dembitz Land Titles, Sec. 181.

24. Susquehanna & W. V. Railroad & Coal Co. v. Quick, 68 Pa. St. 189; Alabama State Land Co. v. Kyle, 99 Ala. 474, 13 So. 43. Under some of the "short limitation" statutes, actual residence is necessary. Stumpf v. Oster-hage, 94 111. 115; Chiles v. Join-, 4 Dana (Ky.) 479.

25. Butler v. Drake, 62 Minn. 229, 64 N. W. 559; Susquehanna & W. V. Railroad & Coal Co. v Quick, 68 Pa. 189; Congdon v. Morgan, 14 S. C. 587; Crapo v. Cameron, 61Iowa, 177. 16 N. W. 523; Finn v. Wisconsin River Land Co., 72 Wis. 546, 40 N. W. 209; Johns v Mckibben, 156 I11. 71, 40 N. E. 149.

In a number of states there are statutory provisions as to what shall constitute possession for this purpose,

26. Perry v. Lawson, 112 Ala. 480, 20 So. 611; Carpenter v. Smith, 76 Ark. 447, 88 S. W. 976; Brumagim v. Bradshaw, 39 Cal. 24, 50; Ritzman v. Aspel-meier, 89 Iowa, 179, 56 N. W. 421; Lamereaux v. Creveling, 103 Mich. 501, 61 N. W. 783; Barker v. Publisher's Paper Co., - N. H. -, 97 Atl. 749; Moore v. Curtis, 169 N. C. 74, 85 S. E. 132; Ambrose v. Huntington, 34 Ore. 484, 56 Pac. 513; Illinois Steel Co. v. Bilot, 109 Wis. 418, 84 N. W. 855, 85 N. W. 402, 83 Am. St. Rep. 905.

27. Chastang v. Chastang, 141 Ala. 451, 109 Am. St. Rep. 45, 37 So. 799; Denham v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 182, 71 Am. Dec. 198; White v. Harris, 206 111. 584, 69 N. E. 519; Smith v. Chapman, 160 Ky. 400, 169 S. W. 834; Lacroix v. Crane, 133 La. 227, 62 So. 657; Malone v. Long, 128 Md. 377, 97 Atl. 643; Parker v. Parker, 1 Allen (Mass.) 245; Leavenworth v. Reeves, 106 Miss. 722, 64 So. 666; Herbst v. Merrifield, 133 Mo. 267, 34 S. W. 571; Cornelius v. Giberson, 25 N. J. L. 1; Wheeler v. Spinola, 54 N. Y. 377; Campbell v. Miller, 165 N. C. 51, 80 S.

E. 974; Wheeler v. Taylor, 32 Ore. 421, 67 Am. St. Rep. 540, 52 Pac. 183; Wheeler v. Winn, 53 Pa. 122, 91 Am. Dec. 186; Stevens v. Pendregon, 106 Tex. 576, 173 S. W. 210; Wilson v. Blake, 53 Vt. 305. | Compare Mclellan v. Mcfadden, 114 Me. 242, 95 Atl. 1025; D. W. Alderman & Sons Co. v. Mcknight, 95 S. C. 245, 78 S. E. 982; Chase v. Eddy, 88 Vt. 235, 92 Atl. 99.

So it has been decided that the mere pasturing of cattle on land did not, in view of the character of the land and the custom of the community, involve an actual possession; Bergere v. United States, 168 U. S. 66, 42 L. Ed. 383; Mccloskey v. Hayden, 169 111. 297, 48 N. E. 432; Fuentes v. Mcdonald, 85 Tex. 132, 20 S. W. 43; Chilton v. White, 72 W. Va. 545, 78 S. E. 1048.

28. Anderson v. Bock, 15 How. (U. S.) 323, 14 L. Ed. 714; Trues-dale v. Ford, 37 111. 210; Armstrong v. Risteau, 5 Md. 256, 59 Am. Dec. 115; Pendill v. Marquette County Agricultural Soc, 95 111. 210; Martin v. Rector, 30 Hun (N. Y.) 138; O'hara v. Richardson, 46 Pa. St. 385.

The possession need not be by the adverse claimant himself, he being regarded as in actual possession for this purpose if one holding under him as his tenant or agent is in possession.31

The possession must, it is said, be "visible" and "notorious," so that the owner may have an opportunity to learn of the adverse claim, and to protect his rights.32 Actual knowledge of the possession on the part of the true owner is not, however, necessary, it being sufficient that he could have learned thereof by the exercise

29. Wood, Limitations (4th Ed.) Sec. 255.

30. See Mattes v. Hall, - (Cal.) -132 Pac. 295; Trask v. Success Mining Co., 28 Idaho, 483, 155 Pac. 288; Ramapo Mfg. Co. v. Mapes, 216 N. Y. 362, 110 N. E. 772.

31. Holtzman v. Douglas, 1G8 U. S. 278; Elliott v. Dycke, 78 Ala. 1; Beckett v. Petaluma, 171 Cal. 309, 153 Pac. 20; Kepley v. Scully, 185 111. 52, 57 N. E. 187; Atty. Gen. v. Ellis, 198 Mass. 91, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1120, 84 N. E. 430; Ramsey v. Glenny, 45 Minn. 401, 22 Am. St. Rep. 736, 48 N. W. 322; Lindenmayer v. Gunst., 70 Miss. 693, 35 Am. St. Rep. 685, 13 So. 252; Alexander v. Gibbon, 118 N. C. 796, 54 Am. St. Rep. 757, 24 S. E. 748; Strom v. Hancock Land Co., 70 Ore. 101, 140 Pac. 458; Whitehead v. Foley, 28 Tex. 1; Chamberlain v.

Pybas, 81 Tex. 511, 17 S. W. 50.

Such possession by one person by the hands of another has been conveniently designated as "mediate posession" as distinct from the "immediate possession' of the person who is actually in the possession of the land. Salmond's Jurisprudence, Sec. 101.

32. Lawrence v. Doe, 144 Ala. 524, 41 So. 612; De Frieze v. Quint, 94 Cal. 653, 28 Am. St. Rep. 151, 30 Pac. 1; Grimes v. Ragiand, 28 Ga. 123; Mcclellan v. Kellogg, 17 111. 498;Haas v. Wilson, 97 Kan. 176, 154 Pac. 1018; Frazier v. Ison, 161 Ky. 379, 170 S. W. 977; Beatty v. Mason, 30 Md. 409; Pugate v Pierce, 49 Mo. 441; Little v. Downing, 37 N. H. 355; King v. Wells, 99 N. C. 344; Wade v. Crouch, 14 Okla. 593; Bowman v. Bowman, 35 Ore. 279; Daniel \. Day ton Coal & Tron <'<>. L32 Tenn., of proper diligence.33 And since the requisites of "actual" possession are usually defined with reference to the sufficiency of such acts to affect the owner with notice of the adverse claim, it would seem somewhat questionable whether there can he any "actual" possession which is not at the same time "visible" and "notorious." There are, however, statements to be found that notoriety of possession is not necessary in case the possession is actually known to the rightful owner,34 statements which suggest, by implication, that there might be a possession sufficient to satisfy the requirement of actual possession, but not sufficient to satisfy that of visible and notorious possession.