As a general rule, one can acquire by adverse possession so great an extent of land only as is covered by his acts of actual possession, continued through the statutory period.38 It is, however, a well-recognized doctrine in this country that one having "color of title" that is, claiming under what purports to be a valid muniment of title, although he actually occupies a part only of the tract covered by his muniment of title, is to be regarded as in possession of the whole tract for the purpose of barring the entry of the owner after the lapse of the statutory period, "constructive possession." as it is usually termed, of the part no! actually occupied by

36. Post Sec. 567.

37. See editorial note, 26 Harv. Law Rev. 762, criticizing Winters v. Powell, 180 Ala. 425, 61 So. 96.

38. Bowles v. Lowery, 181 Ala. 603, 62 So. 107; Langhorst v. Rugers, 88 Ark. 318, 114 S. W.

915; Garrison v. Sampson, Ib Cal. 93; Mattes v. Hall, 21 Cal. App. 552. 132 Pac 295; Roberts v. Merwin, 80 Conn. 347,68. Atl. 377; Tillman v Bomar, 134 Ga. 660, 68 S. E. 504; Bristol v. Carroll County, 96 111. 84 Meade v. Ratnn. 133 Ky. 411, 134 him. As a result of this doctrine, the owner of land who fails to assert his rights within the statutory period as against one in adverse possession of part may be deprived of the whole of the tract, although he had no reason to suppose that the adverse possession was under color of title.

The doctrine referred to applies not only when possession is taken under a conveyance which is invalid, either for want of title or capacity in the grantor, or for want of proper formalities in the execution of the instrument,39 but also when it is taken under a void or voidable decree of court,40 and generally when there is what is known as a "paper title." There is, however, considerable question as to whether a conveyance void on its face constitutes "color of title" for this purpose, or for the purpose of the short limitation acts.41 A conveyance which does not contain any sufam. St. Rep. 467, 118 S. W. 271; Proprietors of Kennebeck Purchase v. Springer, 4 Mass. 416; Barber v. Robinson, 78 Minn. 193, 80 N. W. 968; Allen v. Mansfield, 108 Mo. 343, 18 S. W. 901; Anderson v. Meadows, 162 N. C. 400, 78 S. E. 279; Humphries v. Huffman, 33 Ohio St. 395; Lars v. Smith, 63 Ore. 206, 127 Pac. 26: Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86; Langdon v. Templeton, 66 Vt. 173, 28 Atl. 866.

39. Wright v. Mattison, 18 How. (U. S.) 50, 15 L. Ed. 280; Carter v. Chevalier, 108 Ala. 563, 19 So. 798; Noyes v. Dyer, 25 Me. 468; Hecock v. Van Dusen, 80 Mich. 359, 45 N. W. 343; Miesen v. Canfield, 64 Minn. 513, 67 N. W. 632; Fugate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. 447; Ellington v. Ellington, 103 N. C. 54, 9 S. E. 208; Swift v. Mulkey, 17 Ore. 532, 21 Pac. 871; Stull v. Rich Patch ficient description of the land sought to be conveyed is necessarily insufficient as color of title for the purpose of constructive possessions-according to some decisions this doctrine of constructive possession is not applicable unless the person seeking to avail himself thereof acquired the color of title in the honest belief that the instrument was effective for the purpose of passing title43 and further more fraud on his part in its acquisition has been regarded as depriving him of the right to assert the doctrine.44 It is not clearly apparent why the effect of the instrument as showing a constructive possession greater than the actual possession should be regarded as dependent on the existence of a belief in its validity or a lack of fraud in its acquisition.45

Iron Co., 92 Va. 253, 23 S. E. 293.

40. Reedy v. Camfield, 159 111. 254, 42 N. E. 833, Jones v Thomas, 124 Mo. 586, 24 S. W. 76; Bynum v. Thompson, 25 N. C. 578. See Brind v. Gregory, 120 Cal. 640, 53 Pac. 25; Salter v. Salter, 80 Ga. 178, 12 Am. St. Rep. 249, 4 S. E. 391; Wright v. Stice, 172 111. 571, 51 N. E. 71.

41. That a conveyance void on its face does not give color of title, see Redfield v. Parks, 132 U. S. 239, 33 L. Ed. 327; Larkin v. Wilson, 28 Kan. 513; Frique v. Hopkins, 8 Mart. (La.) 110; Fitschen v. Olsen, 155 Mich. 320, 119 N. W. 3; Wafford v. Mckinna, 23 Tex. 36, 76 Am. Dec. 53; Matthews v. Blake, 16 Wyo. 116, 27 L. R. A. 339, 92 Pac. 242. Contra, Reddick v. Long, 124 Ala. 260, 27 So. 402; Wilson v. Atkinson, 77 Cal. 485, 11 Am. St.

Rep. 299, 20 Pac. 66; Barger v. Hobbs, 67 111. 592; Miesen v. Canfield, 64 Minn. 513, 67 N. W. 632; Power v. Kitching, 10 N. D. 254, 88 Am. St. Rep. 729, 86 N. W. 737.

The view is sometimes taken that a conveyance defective on its face will be sufficient as color of title provided only the defect is such that a person unlearned in the law would have reason to consider the instrument valid. Bloom v. Strauss, 70 Ark. 483, 69 S. W. 548, 72 S. W. 563; De Foresta v. Gast, 20 Cal. 307, 38 Pac. 244; Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 443, 54 Am. Dec. 351; Ipock v. Gaskins, 161 N. C. 673, 77 S. E. 843; Burns v. Stewart, 162 N. C. 360, 78 S. E. 321.

42. Reddick v. Long, 124 Ala 260; 27 So. 402; Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Barker, 125 111. 303, 17 N. E. 797; Bellows v. Jewell, 60 N H. 420; Jackson v. Woodruff, 1

Cow. (N. Y.) 276, 13 Am. Dec. 525; Davis v. Stroud, 104 N. C. 484, 10 S. E. 666; Humphries v. Huffman, 33 Ohio St. 395; Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86; Garvin v. Garvin, 40 S. C. 435, 19 S. E. 74: Bassett v. Martin. 83 Tex. 18 S. W. 587; Blakey v. Morris. 89 Va. 717, 17 S. E. 126.

43. Walsh v. Hill, 38 Cal. 481; Reay v. Butler, 95 Cal. 206, 30 Pac. 208; Lee v. O'quin, 103 Ga. 355, 30 S. E. 356; Godfrey \ Dixon Power & Lighting 228 I11. 487, 81 X. E, 1089; Smith v. Young, 89 Iowa, 338, 56 X. \V. 506; Foulke v. Bond, 41 N. .J. L. 527; Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86; Texas Land Co. v. Williams, 51 Tex. 51; Gregg v. Bayre, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 244, 253, 8 L. Ed of the trespasser.48 And, in spite of occasional statements to the contrary,49 this would seem to be so, regardless of whether the constructive possession of the trespasser commenced before or after the constructive possession of the true owner.50