In order that one may acquire rights in land by possession for the statutory period, the possession must, it is frequently said, be exclusive.35 It must be exclusive of the true owner and also of third persons. If the true owner is on the land as owner, the possession is, in the eye of the law, in such owner,36 and another person who is on the land has, not only no adverse possession, but no possession whatsoever. He is on the land either as a licensee or a trespasser.37 If, however, the true owner is shown to be on the land merely as a licensee, not asserting, by word or act, any right of ownership or possession, his presence on the land does not amount to an actual possession, and the possession may properly be attributed to him who is on the land exercising or claiming exclusive control thereof.38

501, 178 S. W. 1187; Mhoon v. Cain, 77 Tex. 416; Dignan v. Nelson, 26 Utah, 186, 72 Pac. 936.

33. Bynum v. Hewlett, 137 Ala. 333, 34 So. 391; School Dist. No. 8 of Thompson v. Lynch, 33 Conn. 336; St. Louis A. & T. H. R. Co. v. Nugent, 152 111 119, 39 N. E. 263; Alden v. Gilmore, 13 Me. 178; Saumels v. Borrow-scale, 104 Mass. 207; Merritt v. Westerman, 180 Mich. 449, 147 N. W. 483; Village of Glencoe v. Wadsworth, 48 Minn. 402, 51 N. W. 377; Spicer v. Spicer, 249 Mo. 532, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 238, 155 S. W. 832. See Editorial note, 11 Columbia Law Rev. 673; Carney v. Hennessey, 74 Conn. 107, 53 L. R. A. 699, 92 Am. St. Rep. 199, 49 Atl. 910; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Nugent, 152 111. 119, 39 N. E. 263; Denham v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 182.

34. Brown v. Cockrell, 33 Ala. 47; Trotter v. Neal, 50 Ark. 340, 7 S. W. 384; Clarke v. Gilbert, 39 Conn. 94; Cook v. Babcock, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 206; Mccaughn v. Young, 85 Miss. 277, 37 So. 839; Norton v. Kowazek, - (Mo.) - 193 S. W. 556; Dausch v. Crane, 109 Mo. 323, 19 S. W. 61; Pease v. Whitney, - N. H - , 98 Atl. 62; Sheaffer v. Eakman, 56 Pa. St. 144; Mcauliff v. Parker, 10 Wash. 141, 38 Pac. 744.

35. Ward v. Cochran, 150 U. S. 597, 37 L. Ed. 1195; Goodson v. Brothers, 111 Ala. 589, 20 So. 443; Towle v. Quante, 246 111. 568, 92 N. E. 967; Stump v. Henry, 6 Md. 201, 61 Am. Dec. 301; Bailey v. Carlton, 12 N. H. 9, 37 Am. Dec. 190; Cahill v. Palmer, 45 N. Y. 478; Collins v. Lynch, 167 Pa. St. 635, 31 Atl. 921.

As regards the requirement that the possession be exclusive of third persons, this appears to follow from the very nature of legal possession. If two or more persons are on land, neither having title thereto, and each claiming possession independently of the other, neither can be regarded as in legal possession of

36. Reading v. Royston, Salk. 423; Gafford v. Strauss, 89 Ala. 282, 7 L. R. A. 568, 18 Am. St. Rep. Ill, 7 So. 248; Inskup v. Shields, 4 Harr. (Del.) 345; Spencer Christian Church's Trustees v. Thomas, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 250, 84 S. W. 750; Royer v. Ben-low, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 303; Illinois Steel Co. v. Tamms, 154 Wis. 340, 141 N. W. 1011; Litt. Sec. 701; Lightwood, Possession of Land, 36.

37. See Gafford v. Strauss, 89 Ala. 282, 7 L. R. A. 568, 18 Am. St. Rep. Ill, 7 So. 248; Hoyt v. Zumwalt, 149 Cal. 381, 86 Pao. 600; Brumback v. Brumback, 198 111. 66, 64 N. E. 741; Bellis v. Bellis, 122 Mass. 414; Smith v. Hitchcock, 38 Neb. 104. 56 N. W. 791; O'hara v. R'chardson, 46 Pa.

385; Lloyd v. Rawl, 63 S C 219, 41 S. E. 312; Larwell v. Stevens, (C. C.) 12 Fed. 559.

The true owner has been regarded as being in possession of land over which the eaves of his house extended, so as to prevent the assertion of adverse possession by another who made use of the land under the eaves. Lins v. Seefeld, 126 Wis. 610, 105 N. W. 917, approved 24 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 232. Confrn. Randall v. Sanderson, 111 Mass. 114; Rooney v. Petry, 22 Ont. L. Rep. 101.

38. Feliz v. Feliz, 105 Cal. I.

38 Pac. 521 ; Owsley v. Owsley 117 Ky. 47, 77 S. W. 897; First Baptist Church of Sharon v Har-per, 191 Mass. 106, 77 N. E. 778 the land. Legal possession is in nature exclusive.39 There is, however, one case in which the possession of an individual is not exclusive, and that is in the case of co-ownership. In that case, however, the possessions of the co-owners are not separate possessions, but rather a single possession, that is, as stated by Black-stone, a unity of possession exists.40 In the case of persons thus claiming as co-owners the possession of each or, it seems, of one alone,41 will operate in favor of all.42

One may be in possession, for the purpose of acquiring land under the statutes of limitation, although he permits the public to pass over the land,43 nor is the existence of an easement thereover in favor of another individual,44 or of the public,45 inconsistent with his acquisition of title.