In order that a right to use another's land be acquired by the user thereof for the statutory period, the user must be hostile or adverse to the owner of the land.66

62. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hays, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 382, 47 Am. Rep. 291: Simons v. Munch, 115 Minn. 360, 132 N. W. 321, and cases cited in next note.

63. Senior v. Anderson, 115 Cal. 496, 47 Pac. 454; 130 Cal. 290, 62 Pac. 563; California Pastoral & Agricultural Co. v. Medera Canal & Irrigation Co., 167 Cal. 78, 138 Pac. 718; Lavery v. Arnold, 36 Ore. 84, 57 Pac. 907; Oregon, etc. Co. v. Allen, 41 Ore. 209, 93 Am. St. Rep. 701, 69 Pac. 455; Cleary v. Daniels, - Utah, -, 167 Pac. 820.

64. Wiel, Water Rights in the Western States (2nd Ed.), Sec. 247.

65. 93 Am. St. Rep. note to Oregon etc. Co. v. Allen, at p. 720; Wiel, Water Rights, Sec. 247.

66. Humphreys v. Blaslngame, 104 Cal. 40, 37 Pac. 804; Dexter v. Tree, 117 111. 532. b N. E. 506; Cox v. Forrest, 60 Mil. 74; choiiar Potosi Min. Co. v. Kennedy, 3 Nev. 361, 93 Am. Dec. 409; Pavey v. Vance, 56 Ohio St. 162, 46 N. E. 898; Pierce v. cloud. 42 Pa. St. L02, 82 Am. Dec 496; Kearney v. liuroiii;!i of West

The courts usually refrain from an explicit statement of what they mean by adverse user in this connection, but it appears reasonably safe to say that a user is adverse if not accompanied by any recognition, in express terms or by implication, of a right in the landowner to stop such user now or at some time in the future. The recognition of the landowner's right to put an end to the user precludes any presumption, from his failure to assert such right, that no such right exists.

That the user of the land is under permission or license from the owner of the land shows, it is generally recognized, that the user is not adverse.67 Such a user evidently involves a recognition of the landowner's right to stop it now or in the future, and in view of such recognition, no inference can be drawn from his failure actually to stop it. But a user which

Chester, 199 Pa. St. 392, 49 Atl. 227.

67. Stewart v. White, 128 Ala. 202, 55 L. R. A. 211, 30 So. 526; Medlock v. Owen, 105 Ark. 460, 151 S. W. 995; Thomas v. England, 71 Cal. 456, 12 Pac. 491; Cassin v. Cole, 153 Cal. 677, 96 Pac. 277; Lambe v. Manning, 171 111. 612, 49 N. E. 509; Anchor v. Stewart, 270 111. 57, 110 N. E. 385; Conner v. Wood-fill, 126 Ind. 85, 22 Am. St. Rep. 568, 25 N. E. 876; Sexton v. Holt, 91 Kan. 26, 136 Pac. 934; Dris-coll v. Morehead, 147 Ky. 107, 143 S. W. 758; Morse v. Williams, 62 Me. 445; Kilburn v. Adams, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 33, 39 Am. Dec. 754; Moore v. Bulgreen, 153 Mich. 261, 116 N. W. 1005; Lanier v. Booth, 50 Miss. 410; Dulce Realty Co. v. Staed Realty Co., 245 Mo. 417, 151 S. W. 415; Crawford v. Minnesota & M. Land & Improvement Co., 15 Mont. 153, 38 Pac. 713; Bone v. James, 82 Neb. 442, 118 N. W. 83; Howard v. Wright, 38 Nev. 25, 143 Pac. 1184; Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 309; Wiseman v. Luck-singer, 84 N. Y. 31, 38 Am. Rep. 479; Lincoln v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 26 N. D. 504, 144 N. W. 713; Wimer v. Simmons, 27 Ore. 1, 50 Am. St. Rep. 685; Zerbey v. Allan, 215 Pa. 383. 64 Atl. 587; Turnbull v. Rivers, 3 Mccord L. (S. C.) 131, 15 Am. Dec. 622; Turner v. South & West Improvement Co., 118 Va. 720, 88 S. E. 85; Whaley v. Jarrett, 69 Wis. 613, 2 Am. St. Rep. 764, 34 N. W. 727. But Frederic v. Mayers, 89 Miss. 127, 43 So. 677 appears to assert, in an obscure way, that a revocable license becomes irrevocable after the prescriptive period has passed.

It has been decided that the is permissive in its inception may become adverse by the action of the person exercising the user in denying the right of the landowner to interfere with the user, provided notice of such denial is brought home to the landowner.68

When the owner undertakes to confer upon another a perpetual right of user in the land, but fails to do so in a valid manner, as when he makes an oral grant of an easement, the user of the land by such other in accordance with the terms of the invalid grant cannot be regarded as permissive and in subordination to the rights of the landowner, but is in effect adverse to such rights.69 Such a case is analogous to that of the possession of land under an invalid conveyance user is not adverse if it was under permission, although the person giving permission was a tenant who had no authority to give permission. Williamson v. Abbott. 107 S. C. 397, 93 S. E. 15. This appears to be entirely reasonable.

That payment to the land owner of an annual sum in connection with the user justifies an inference that it is permissive, see Gardner v. Hodgson's Kingston Breweries Co. (1903) App. Cas. 229; O'brien's Appeal, 11 Wkly Notes Cas. (Pa.) 229.

68. Barbour v. Pierce, 42 Cal. 657; Hill v. Hagaman, 84 ind. 287; Mcallister v. Pickup, 84 Iowa, 65, 50 N. W. 556; Patterson v. Griffith, - (Ky.) - , 62 S. W. 884; Pitzman v. Boyce, 111 Mo. 387, 33 Am. St. Rep. 536, 19 S. W. 1104; Hurst v. Adams, 86 Mo. App. 73; Taylor v. Gerrish, 59 N. H. 569; Eckerson v. Crippen, 110 N. Y. 585, 1 L. R. A. 487. 18 N. E. 443; Huston v. Bybee, 17 Ore. 140, 2 L. R. A. 568, 20 Pac.

51: Thoemke v. Fiedler, 91 Wis. 386, 64 N. W. 1030; Weidensteiner v. Mally, 55 Wash. 79, 104 Pac. 143.

69. Oneto v. Restano, 78 Cal. 374, 20 Pac. 743; Myers v. Berven. 166 Cal. 484, 137 Pac. 260; Gyra v. Winler, 40 Colo. 366, 13 Ann. Cas. 841, 91 Pac. 36; Legg v. Horn, 45 Conn. 415; Alderman v. New Haven, 81 Conn. 337, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 74, 70 Atl. 626; Mckenzie v. Elliott, 134 111. 156, 24 N. E. 965; Schmidt v. Brown, 226 111. 590, 80 N. E. 1071; Parish v. Kaspare, 109 Ind. 586, 10 N. E. 109; Shimanek v. Chicago. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. - (Iowa), - 152 N. W. 574; Talbott v. Thorn, 91 Ky. 417, 16 S. W. 88; Oak Grove Missionary Baptist Church v. Rice, 162 Ky. 525, 172 S. W. 927; Jewett v. Hussey, 70 Me. 433; Stearns v. Janes, 12 Allen (Mass.) 582; Sanford v. Kern. 223 Mo. 61G, 122 S. W. 1051: Wills v. Parker, 74 N. II. 193, 66 Atl 121. Heard v Bowen, Tex Civ Ap -, 184 S. W. 234; Holm v.