In examinations of title it is not uncommon to find two, or even more, conflicting claims of title evidenced by deeds or other matter of record, while inquiries in pais may further disclose claims of title and ownership founded upon actual occupation and possession, under claims of right resting upon unrecorded deeds, undisclosed descents, or prescriptive user. In some cases the adverse titles have a common origin, and all flow from the same source; in others they originate through tax sales, or by reason of independent conveyances from individuals. Sometimes the adverse titles are only seeming, being the results of mistakes in the drafting of conveyances. The questions raised by these conflicting claims are numerous and sometimes very difficult of solution.

Under a separate head of " Adverse Conveyances" are usually grouped all conveyances emanating from independent sources and not connected with the original grantor or forming a part of the regular course of title. These conveyances may consist of tax deeds and resulting conveyances which have not been merged into the common ownership; an assertion of title by one having no record evidence; and deeds which by erroneous descriptions do not convey the property intended, but cover other and different parcels. Where an adverse title appears of record, followed by mesne conveyances, and eventually merging into the original title, the deeds constitute a part of the chain and are shown in the regular course.

An adverse title need not depend on documentary evidence, but may rest wholly on occupation coupled with other circumstances. This, of course, the abstract will not show, and the facts which constitute such title are ascertained by inquiries in pais.

It is a general rule, that where one enters upon land under a recorded deed, his entry and claim must be referred to that deed and measured by it.67 Such deed, although void in fact, yet gives a "colorable title" to the purchaser, and where it professes to convey the entire estate, a claim and occupation under it creates an adverse possession as against all the world.68 Possession under a claim of title, without a deed or other written instrument, limits the person so asserting hie claim to his actual enclosure or occupancy,69 but when founded on a claim and color of title, a constructive possession of the entire tract will follow the actual occupancy of any portion,70 provided the deed or other matter be of record.

A valid title is not required in order to enable a party to rely upon adverse possession under the statute of limitations, nor is it necessary that he should trace title through a chain to any source.71 A deed which purports to convey a complete title will be sufficient to give color of title, and, generally, when followed by a continuous and uninterrupted possession for the entire statutory period, it will constitute an adverse holding, effective for all purposes, however groundless the supposed title may be.72

67 Stevens vs. Brooks, 24 Wis., 326. 68 Edgerton vs. Bird, 6 Wis., 527;

Brooks vs. Bruyn, 35 111., 394;

Hamilton vs. Boggess, 63 Mo., 233 69 Dills vs. Hubbard, 21 III, 328.

70 Scott vs. Elkins, 83 N. C, 424;

Coleman vs. Billings, 90 111., 577; Webb vs. Richardson, 42 Vt., 465.

71 Rawson vs. Fox, 55 III., 200.

An actual continued occupation of lands under a claim of title exclusive of any other right, although not founded on a written instrument, is yet sufficient, if extending through the entire statutory period, to confer title to the part so actually occupied.73 It is immaterial to support title thus claimed whether there be a deed valid in form, or whether there be no deed, but there must be a claim of title, and there must be an actual occupation measured by a distinct, visible and marked possession. Permissive user can never, by any lapse of time, and even though continuous and exclusive, ripen into a title to the fee. Hence it is that mere "squatters," or intruders upon lands, acquire no rights by reason of their possession, for the gist of every adverse holding, as above explained, is, that it is accompanied by a claim of right, and a mere trespass can never resolve itself into a right, so as to set the statute in motion, however long continued.

When the title offered is adverse in its character, special efforts should be made by inquiries in pais to demonstrate its validity before accepting same. The highest and best record proof that could be adduced would be the judgment of some court of competent jurisdiction, either in an action of ejectment or a suit to quiet title. A deed purporting to convey title is next in order, while the payment of taxes and the like still further tend to strengthen it. Many of the facts which go to confirm an adverse title are not capable, however, of affirmative showing in an abstract, and evidence concerning them must, of necessity, be disclosed aliunde.

72 Ford vs. Wilson, 35 Miss., 504; Grant vs. Fowler, 39 N. H., 104.

73 Dills vs. Hubbard, 21 111., 328; Doe vs. Eslava, 11 Ala., 102.