It is frequently stated that, in order that one may acquire a right by prescription, the user must be under claim of right.85 Sometimes this requirement is stated as adof such space by another even for his own purpose is permissive. Gascho v. Lennert, 176, Ind. 677, 97 N. E. 6.

83. See Bennett v. Biddle, 150 Pa. St. 420, 24 Atl. 738.

84. Thompson v. Easley, 87 Ga. 320, 13 S. E. 511; Clark v. Hen-ckel - (Md.) - , 26 Atl. 1039; Dow-ling v. Hennings, 20 Md. 179, 83 Am. Dec. 545; Barnes v. Haynes, 13 Gray (Mass.) 188, 74 Am. Dec. 629; Jensen v. Showalter, 79 Neb. 544, 113 N. W. 202; Nicholls v. Wentworth, 100 N. Y. 455, 3 N. E. 482; Craven v. Rose, 3 S. C. 72 See Scott v. Dishough, 83 Ark. 369, 103 S. W. 1153. But see Wilkinson v. Hutzel, 142 Mich. 674, 10G N. W. 207.

84a. Watkins v. Peck, 13 N. H. 360; Shaughnessey v. Leary, 162 Mass. 108, 38 N. E. 197.

85. Union Mill & Mining Co. v. Ferris, 2 Sawy. 176, Fed Cas. No. 14371; Trump v. Mcdonnell,

120 Ala. 200, 24 So. 353; Barbour v. Pierce, 42 Cal. 657; Brandon v. Umpqua Lumber & Timber Co., 26 Cal. App. 96, 146 Pac. 46; Clarke v. Clarke, 133 Cal. 667, 66 Pac. 10; Medlock v. Owen, 105 Ark. 460, 151 S. W. 995; Brossard v. Morgan, 7 Idaho, 215, 61 Pac. 1031; Dexter v. Tree, 117 111. 532, 6 N. E. 506; Hill v. Hagaman, 84 Ind. 287; Parish v. Kaspare, 109 Ind. 586, 10 N. E. 109; Bowman v. Wickliffe, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 84; Rollins v. Black-den, 112 Me. 459, Ann. Cas. 1917A 875, 92 Atl. 521; Sargent v. Ballard, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 251; Brace v. Yale, 10 Allen (Mass.) 441; Bigelow Carpet Co. v. Wig-gin, 239 Mass. 542, 95 N. E. 938; Wallace v. Fletcher, 30 N. H. 434; Burnham v. Mcquosten, 48 .N. H. 446; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369; Felton v. Simpson, 11 Ired. L. (33 N. C.) 84; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ihiys, 11 Lea, ditional to that of the adverseness of the user, and sometimes as explanatory of what the requirement of adverseness means. In whichever way it be asserted, the recognition of such a requirement, like that of claim of title as a prerequisite to the running of the statute of limitations in favor of one wrongfully in possession of land, involves considerable difficulty. It appears to be conceded that this requirement of claim of right does not involve any necessity of a verbal assertion, during the period of user, of a right to exercise such user, and that it is sufficient if an assertion of such a claim can be inferred from the circumstances of the user itself.86 And so it has been stated that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the user of another's land without interruption for the prescriptive period will be presumed to have been under claim of right.87 This requirement of claim of

(Tenn.) 382, 47 Am. Rep. 291; Dodge v. Stacy, 39 Vt. 558; Wilder v. Wheeldon, 56 Vt. 344; Kent v. Dobyns, 112 Va. 586, 72 S. E. 139; Bisbee v. Lacky, 97 Wash. 447, 166 Pac. 638. In Boyd v. Morris, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 642, 106 S. W. 867, it is said to be immaterial whether the adverse use of a passway over the land of another is claimed as a matter of right or merely as a matter of convenience.

86. Deerfield v. Connecticut R. R., 144 Mass. 325, 11 N. E. 105: Smith v. Putnam, 62 N. H. 369; Hammond v. Zehner, 21 N. Y. 118; Townsend v. Bissell, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 297; Snowden v. Bell, 159 N. C. 497, 75 S. E. 721; Pavey v. Vance, 56 Ohio St. 162, 46 N. E. 898; Hall v. Austin, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 59, 48 S. W. 53; Barber v. Bailey, 86 Vt. 219, 44 L. R. A. (N. S) 98, 84 Atl. 608; Dodge v. Stacy, 39 Vt. 558. An

Iowa statute provides that user shall not be evidence of a claim of right, and that express notice of the claim must be given. See Gates v. Colax Northern R. Co., 177 Iowa, 690, 159 N. W. 456; Mcbridge v. Bair, 134 Iowa, 611, 112 N. W. 169.

87. Smith v. Ponsford, 184 Ind. 53, 110 N. E. 194; Mitchell v. Pratt, 177 Ky. 438, 197 S. W. 961; Blake v. Everett, 1 Allen (Mass.) 248; Miller v. Garlock, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 153; Pavey v. Vance, 56 Ohio St. 162, 46 N. E. 898; Barber v. Bailey, 86 Vt. 219, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 98, 84 Atl. 608; Poronto v. Sinnott, 89 Vt. 479, 95 Atl. 647; Muncy v. Updike, 119 Va. 636, 89 S. E. 884; Rogerson v. Shepherd, 33 W. Va. 307, 10 S. E. 632; Wend-ler v. Woodward, 93 Wash. 684, 161 Pac. 1043.

But the burden of proof, in the sense of risk of non persuaright thus appears to resolve itself into a requirement merely of a user which will justify an inference or presumption of such a claim, and the only user which can possibly satisfy this requirement is obviously a user "as of right," that is, a user unaccompanied by any recognition of a right in the landowner to stop such user. It would be more satisfactory if the courts, instead of asserting that the user must be under claim of right, would assert merely that it must be "as of right"88 or would be satisfied with the statement that it must be adverse, which apparently means the same. As it is not necessary that the person exercising the wrongful use verbally assert a claim of right to make such use, so, it is conceived, it is not necessary that he believe himself to have such a right, that is, a mental claim of right is no more necessary than a verbal claim of right. It is recognized that good faith is not necessary to entitle one to the benefit of the statute of limitations,89 and there is no reason for regarding it as necessary for the application of the doctrine of prescription.90 sion of the jury, is necessarily upon the person asserting the prescriptive right. Shea v. Gavitt, 89 Conn. 359, L. R. A. 1916A 689, 94 Atl. 360; Rollins v. Blackden, 112 Me. 459, Ann. Cas. 1917A 875, 92 Atl. 521; Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 283, 48 L. R. A. 711, 53 S. W. 907; St. Martin v. Skamania Boom Co., 79 Wash. 393, 140 Pac. 355; District of Columbia v. Robinson, 180 U. S. 92, 45 L. Ed. 440 (dictum).

88. As in Polly v. Mccall, 37 Ala. 20; Stevens v. Dennett, 51 N. H. 324; Worrall v. Rhoads, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 427; Webster v. Lowell, 142 Mass. 324, 8 N. E. 54.

In the English Prescription

Act, the two expressions "as of right" and "claiming right" are used, and they are regarded as similar in meaning. Tickle v. Brown, 4 Ad. & El. 369, and "as of right," it has been decided, means as a person rightfully entitled would have enjoyed the user. Bright v. Walker, 1 Cromp. Mees. & Ros. 211, while the user is not "as of right" if permissive. International Tea Stores v. Hobbs (1903) 2 ch. 165; Gardner v. Hodgson's Kingston Brewery (1903) App. Cas. 229.

89. Ante, Sec. 504 note 72.

90. The decision in Wilder v. Wheeldon, 56 Vt. 344, that the claim of a right of way by prescription was defeated by