The intention must be manifest ; Lewis v. Railroad Co., 162 N. Y. 202, 56 N. E. 540; Haney v. Breeden, 100 Va. 781, 42- S. E. 916 ; Marcy v. Marcy, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 360. It guides the entry and fixes its character ; Jasperson v. Scharnikow, 150 Fed. 571, 80 C. C. A. 373, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1178, citing Ewing v. Burnet, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 51, 9 L. Ed. 624. Possession taken under claim of title shows such intention ; Probst v. Trustees, 129 U. S. 182, 9 Sup. Ct. 263, 32 L. Ed. 642. But if by mistake one oversteps his bounds and encroaches upon his neighbor's lands, not knowing the location of the true line and tending to claim no more than he really is entitled to possess, his possession is not ad verse, and will not give him title no matter how long he actually holds it ; Shirey v. Whitlow, 80 Ark. 444, 97 S. W. 444 ; Gordon v. Booker, 97 Cal. 586, 32 Pac. 593; Mills v. Penny, 74 Ia. 172, 37 N. W. 135, 7 Am. St. Rep. 474; Silver Creek Cement Corp. v. Ce ment Co., 138 Ind. 297, 35 N. E. 125, 37 N. C. 721; Preble v. Railroad Co., 85 Me. 260, 27 All. 149, 21 L. R. A. 829, 35 Am. St. Rep. 366; Kirkman v. Brown, 93 Tenn. 476, 27 S. W. 709. In such a case the intent to claim title exists only upon the condition that his be lief as to his boundary is true. The intention is not absolute, but provisional, and the pos session is not adverse; Preble v. Railroad Co., 85 Me. 260, 27 Atl. 149, 21 L. R. A. 829, 35 Am. St. Rep. 366. When a boundary line between adjoining landowners is perpetually in dispute, and neither has actual occupa tion to any definite line, there is no adverse possession beyond the true line ; Liddle y. Blake, 131 Ia. 165, 105 N. W. 649 ; nor will the encroachment of one in the erection of his building on neighboring property through mistake constitute such a possession as will ripen into title by the lapse of time ; Davis v. Owen, 107 Va. 283, 58 S. E. 581, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 728, nor where a deed, by mistake, covered land not intended to be conveyed ; Garst v. Brutsche, 129 Ia. 501, 105 N. W. 452. Where one enters into possession of real property by permission of the owner, with ' out any tenancy whatever being created, except at sufferance, possession being given as a mere matter of favor, he can never ac quire title by adverse possession, no matter how long continued against the true owner thereof, unless there is a clear, positive, un equivocal disclaimer and disavowal of the owner's title and an assertion by the occu pant of a title in hostility thereto, notice thereof being brought home to the landowner. See McCutchen v. McCutchen, 77 S. C. 129, 57 S. E. 678, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1140, and cases cited.
The adverse possession must be "actual, continued, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile ;" Boaz v. Heister, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 21; Evans v. Templeton, 69 Tex. 375, 6 S. W. 843, 5 Am. St. Rep. 71; Haffindorfer v. Gault, 84 Ky. 124 ; Paldi v. Paid!, 95 Mich. 410, 54 N. W. 903 ; Chastang v. Chastang, 141 Ala. 451, 37 South. 799, 109 Am. St. Rep. 45; Foulke v. Bond, 41 N. J. L. 527; Jasper son v. Scharnikow, 150 Fed. 571, 80 C. C. A. 373, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1178. It is founded in trespass and disseisin, an ouster and con tinued exclusion of the true owner for the period prescribed by the statute ; Olewine v. Messmore, 128 Pa. 470, 18 Atl. 495; Ward v. Cochran, 150 U. S. 597, 14 Sup. Ct. 230, 37 L. Ed. 1195. Nepean v. Doe, 2 Sm. Lead.
Cas. 597 ; 16 Harv. L. Rev. 224. Even the sole possession by one tenant in common is not presumed adverse to a cotenant ; the or dinary presumption is that such possession is held in the right of both tenants ; Farm ers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 45 Ohio St. 152, 12 N. E. 439 ; mere occupation and appropriation of rents ; Todd v. Todd, 117 Ill. 92, 7 N. E. 583 ; Blackaby v. Black aby, 185 Ill. 94, 56 N. E. 1053; or acquiesc ing in an adverse claim of a sub-tenant ; Lee v, Livingston, 143 Mich. 203, 106 N. W.
? 713; will not affect the rights of the cotenants ; and see Velott v. Lewis, 102 Pa. 326. There must be an actual ouster ; Morris v. Davis, 75 Ga. 169; or exclusive possession after demand ; or express notice of adverse possession ; or acts of exclusive ownership of an unequivocal character ; Rodney v. Mc Laughlin, 97 Mo. 426, 9 S. W. 726 ; Lindley v. Groff, 37 Minn. 338, 34 N. W. 26 ; Breden v. McLaurin, 98 N. C. 307, 4 S. E. 136 ; Kill mer v. Wuchner, 74 Ia. 359, 37 N. W. 778. The receipt of the entire profits, the exclu sive possession for twenty-one years, and a claim of right for that time, will constitute ' an ouster ; Abrams v. Rhoner, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 507 ; Dobbins v. Dobbins, 141 N. C. 210, 53 S. E. 870, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 185, 115 Am. St. Rep. 682; or where a co-tenant asserts possession under a deed purporting to con vey the whole title, he will be deemed' to have ousted his co-tenant; Wright v. Kley la, 104 Ind. 223, 4 N. E. 16 ; or where he de vises by 'will read in the presence of his co tenant ; Miller v. Miller, 60 Pa. 16, 100 Am. Dec. 538. The registration of a deed pur porting to vest title to the entire tract in the grantee is notice to the 'co-tenant of an adverse holding ; McCann v. Welch, 1.06 Wis. 142, 81 N. W. 996. One claiming by adverse possession cannot avail himself of the previous possession of another person with whose title he is in no way connected; Stout v. Taul, 71 Tex. 438, 9 S. W. 329; Heflin v. Burns, 70 Tex. 347, 8 S. W. 48 ; Witt v. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 122, 35 N. W. 862. If the combined periods of adverse posses sion of two successive holders equal twenty years, the true owner will be deprived of his title : but there must be a privity of estate such as a devise or conveyance; Sawyer v. Kendall, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 241; Frost v. Courtis, 172 Mass. 401, 52 N. E. 515. Where privity is required, a defective deed or even a mere oral transfer is sufficient; Weber v. Anderson, 73 Ill. 439; and see 13 Harv. L. Rev. 52. There can be no adverse posses sion against a state; Hurst v. Dulany, 84 Va. 701, 5 S. E. 802; but a state may ac quire a title by adverse possession ; Attorney General v. Ellis, 198 Mass. 91, 84 N. E. 430, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1120; Eldridge v. City of Binghamton, 120 N. Y. 309, 24 N. E. 462; Birdsall v. Cary, 66 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 358; but see Whatley v. Patten, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 77, 33 S. W. 60. No length of adverse posses sion by user on the side of a highway by an abutting owner gives title to him; Par sons v. Village of Rye, 140 N. Y. Supp. 961.
When both parties claim under the same title ; as, if a man seised of certain land in fee have issue two sons, and die seised, and one of the sons enter by abatement into the land, the statute of limitations will not op erate against the other son; Co. Litt. s..396.