ADVERSE POSSESSION. The enjoyment of land, or such estate as lies in grant, un der such circumstances as indicate that such enjoyment has been commenced and contin ued under an assertion or color of right on the part of the possessor. 3 East 394 ; Wal lace v. Duffield, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 527, 7 Am. Dec. 660; French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 440, 21 Am. Dec. 680; Robinson v. Douglass, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 364; Smith v. Burtis, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 174; Jackson v. Huntington, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 402, 8 L. Ed. 170; Bowles v. Sharp, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 550. See 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1178, note.
A prescriptive title rests upon a different principle from that of a title arising under the statute of limitations., Prescription op erates as evidence of a grant and confers a positive title; Cruise, Dig. tit. 31, ch. 1, § 4. The statute of limitations operates not so much to confer positive title on the oc cupant, as to bar the remedy. Hence it is said to be properly called a negative pre scription; id. It applies only when there has been a disseisin or some actionable in vasion of the real owner's possession; Claw son v. Primrose, 4 Del. Ch. 670 7i.
When such possession has been actual, Mather v. Ministers of Trinity Church, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 517, 8 Am. Dec. 663, and has been adverse for twenty years, the law raises the presumption of a grant ; Angell, Wat. Cour. 85. But this presumption arises only when the use or occupation would otherwise have been unlawful ; Tinkham v. Arnold, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 120; Jackson v. Richards, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 617; Jackson v. Vermilyea, 677 ; Hall v. Powel, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 456, 8 Am. Dec. 722.
The statute of limitations is the source of title by adverse possession; Armijo v. Ar. mijo, 4 N. M. (Gild.) 57, 13 Pac. 92. It is held to be not grounded upon the presump tion of a grant ; but is the fiat of the legis lature cutting off the right to maintain suit; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith, 125 Ky. 336, 101 S. W. 317, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 1, 128 Am. St. Rep. 254; and is for the interest of the sta bility of titles; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Ely,. 25 Wash. 384, 65 Pac. 555, 54 L. R. A. 526, 87 Am. St. Rep. 766. It protects the disseisor in his possession not out of regard to the merits of his title, but because the real own er has acquiesced in his possession; Foulke v. Bond, 41 N. J. L. 527. It must be com
plied with in every substantial particular; Brokel v. McKechnie, 69 Tex. 33, 6 S. W. 623.
A mere possession, without color or claim of an adverse title, will not enable one in an action of right to avail himself of the statute of limitations ; Clagett v. Conlee, 16 Ia. 487; Jasperson v. Scharnikow, 150 Fed. 571,. 80 C. C. A. 373, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1178; Jackson v. Huntington, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 402,. 8 L. Ed. 170; Stevens v. Brooks, 24 Wis. 329; Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 328, 17 L. Ed. 871. The terms "color of title" and "claim of title" are not synonymous; Her bert v. Hanrick, 16 Ala. 581. To constitute the former there must be a paper title, but the latter may rest wholly in parol ; Hamil ton v. Wright, 30 Ia. 480. The claim of right may be made inferentially by unequivo cal acts of ownership ; Barnes v. Light, 116 N. Y. 34, 22 N. E. 441; Wilbur v. R. Co., 116 Ia. 65, 89 N. W. 101'; as by, the occupation and use of land by a railroad for a right of way ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Houghton, 126 Ill. 235, 18 N. D. 301, 1 L. R. A. 213, 9 Am. St. Rep. 581; or by visible, hostile, exclusive, and continuous appropriation of the land;.
Cox v. Hotel Co., (Tex.) 47 S. W. 808. It need not be a valid claim, so long as it is made and relied on by the person in posses sion ; Jackson v. Ellis, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 118 ; Clapp v. Bromagham, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 530 ; Grant v. Fowler, 39 N. H. 101; Cornelius v. Giberson, 25 N. J. L. 1; Montgomery Coun ty v. Severson, 64 Ia. 326, 17 N. W. 197, 20 N. W. 458 ; Virginia Midland R. Co. v. Bar bour, 97 Va. 118, 33 S. E. 554 ; Dothard v. Denson, 72 Ala. 541; and where all the oth er elements of an adverse possession have concurrently and persistently existed for the statutory time, color of title has been usual ly held not essential ; Moore v. Brownfield, 7 Wash. 23, 34 Pac. 199; Dibble v. Land Co., 163 U. S. 63, 16 Sup. Ct. 939, 41 L. Ed. 72 ; and see the cases collected on this point, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1178, n.