It has been quite frequently stated that the adverse user must be known to the owner of the land in order that the doctrine of prescription may apply as against him.91 But it appears that actual knowledge on his part need not be shown, it being sufficient that the user is so visible and notorious that, in the exercise of due diligence, he would learn thereof.92 Otherwise, as has been remarked "a non resident, or a landowner unusually in-attentive to his property and business might escape the operation of the rule of prescription under circumstances which would expose to it a resident or landowner who kept well informed respecting his property, evidence that the claimant "never entertained any claim of right to use the way," is, it is submitted, erroneous.

91. Stewart v. White, 128 Ala. 202, 55 L. R. A. 211, 30 So. 526; American Co. v. Bradford, 27 Cal. 360; Wills v. Babb, 222 111. 95, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 136, 78 N. E. 42; Peterson v. Mc-cullough, 50 Ind. 35; Zigefoose, v. Zigefoose, 69 Iowa, 391, 28 N. W. 654; George T Stagg Co. v. Frankfort Modes Glass Works, 175 Ky. 330, 194 S. W. 333; Barry v. Edlavitch, 84 Md. 95, 33 L. R. A. 294, 35 Atl. 170; Sargent v. Ballard, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 251; Holman v. Richardson, 112 Miss. 216, 72 So. 921; Gross v. Jones, 85 Neb. 77, 122 N. W. 681; Wallace v. Fletcher, 30 N. H. 434; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369; Wooldridge v. Coughlin, 46 W. Va. 345, 33 S. E. 233.

92. Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Forbes, 129 Ala. 471, 87 Am. St. Rep. 71, 29 So. 683; Abbott v. Pond, 142 Cal. 393, 76 Pac. 60; Lockwood v. Lawrence, 77 Me. 297, 52 Am. Rep. 73; Deerfield v. Connecticut R. R., 144 Mass. 325, 11 N. E. 105; O'brien v. Goodrich, 177 Mass. 32, 58 N. E. 151; Mc-cracken v. Macneal, 169 Mich. 414, 135 N. W. 461; Holman v. Richardson, 115 Miss. 169, L. R. A. 1917F 942, 76 So. 136; Wells v. Parker, 74 N. H. 193, 66 Atl. 121; Carlisle v. Hooper, 21 N. J. Eq. 576; Treadwell v. Ins-lee, 120 N. Y. 458, 24 N. E. 651; Salem Mills Co. v. Lord. 42 Ore. 82, 69 Pac. 1033, 70 Pac. 832; Reimer v. Stuber, 20 Pa. St. 458, 59 Am. Dec. 744; Hughesville Water Co. v. Person, 182 Pa. St 450, 38 Atl. 584; Perrin v. Garfield, 37 Vt. 304; Arbuckle v. Ward, 29 Vt. 43; Davison v. Columbia Lodge No. 8, K. P., 90 Wash. 461. 156 Pac. 383; Dalton v. Angus, 6 App. Cas. 740 at 801, per Selborne, L. C; Union Lighterage Co. v. London Graving Dock Co., (1901) 2 Ch. 300, (1902) 2 Ch. 557. Compare Cheda v. Southern Pac. Co., 22 Cal. App. 373, 134 Pac. 717.

The owner of the land, having notice, express or implied, of the user, may properly, it would seem, be charged with notice of the adverse character thereof, unless the circumstances are such as to raise a presumption that it is permissive.94 It has, however, been occasionally stated in general terms that the landowner must have notice of the adverse character of the user.95