Applying the theory that what makes a continued user effective to confer a corresponding right is the acquiescence of the owner in such user, as raising a presumption of a grant, it would seem to be sufficient to exclude such presumption that the owner of the land has protested against the user at any time during the prescriptive period, and some courts have taken this view.55 The weight of authority is, however, perhaps the other way, that mere remonstrances or protests by the landowner will not prevent the acquisition of a right by prescription, in the absence of any physical interference with the user, or legal proceedings based thereon.50 These latter cases follow, in this regard, the analogy of the decisions with reference to the statutes limiting the period for the recovery of land.

Lyons, 224 Mass. 256, 112 N. E. 610; Mctntire v. Talbot, 62 Me. 312. So as to mere efforts by a stranger to interrupt. Mclntire v. Talbot, 62 Me. 312.

55. Stillman v. White Rock Mfg. Co., 3 Woodb. & M. 538, Fed. Cas. No. 13446; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Hoag, 90 111. 339; Dartnell v. Bidwell, 115 Me. 227, 98 Atl. 743; Powell v. Bagg, 8 Gray (Mass.) 441, 69 Am. Dec. 262; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Mc-farlan, 30 N. J'. Eq. 180; Workman v. Curran, 89 Pa. St. 226; Nichols v. Aylor, 7 Leigh (Va.)

565; Reed v. Garnett, 101 Va. 47, 43 S. E. 184; Woolridge v. Coughlin, 46 W. Va. 345, 33 S. E. 233; Crosier v. Brown, 66 W. Va. 273, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 174, 66 S. E. 326; Gwinn v. Gwinn, 77 W. Va. 281, 87 S. E. 371. See also Conner v. Wood-fill, 126 Ind. 85, 22 Am. St. Rep. 568, 25 N. E. 876; Tracy v. Atherton, 36 Vt. 503.

56. Cox v. Clough, 70 Cal. 345, 11 Pac. 732; Connor v. Sullivan, 40 Conn. 26; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Mcfarlan, 43 N.

That the owner of the land, during the prescriptive period, institutes a legal proceeding on account of the user of the land by another, prevents the latter from acquiring the right by lapse of time,57 provided at least the proceeding is conducted by the landowner to a successful conclusion.58