Extension of the inclosure within the time limited will not give title to the part in cluded in the extension ; Hall v. Gitting's Lessee, 2 H. & J. (Md.) 391. Where, how ever, the claim rests upon color of title as well as possession, the possession, will be regarded as coextensive with the powers de scribed in the title-deed ; Ewing v. Burnet, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 41, 9 L. Ed. 624; Bynum v. Thompson, 25 N. C. 578 ; Webb v. Sturtevant, 1 Scam. (111.) 181; Jackson v. Smith, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 406; Proprietors of Kenne beck Purchase v. Springer, 4 Mass. 416, 3 Am. Dec. 227 ; Kile v. Tubbs, 23 Cal. 431; unless the acts or declarations of the occu pant restrict it. But the constructive pos session of land arising from color of title cannot be extended to that part of it where of there is no actual adverse possession; Beaupland v. McKeen, 28 Pa. 124, 70 Am. Dec. 115 ; Franklin Academy v. Hall, 16 B. Monr. (Ky.) 472; nor will a subsequent con flicting possession, whether under color of title or not, be extended by construction be yond the limits of the actual adverse posses sion for the purpose of defeating a prior con structive possession ; Jackson v. Vermilyea, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 677; Ralph v. Bayley, 11 Vt. 521. Nor can there be any constructive ad verse possession against the owner when there has been no actual possession which he could treat as a trespass and bring suit for ; Steedman v. Hilliard, 3 Rich. (S. C.) 101. A trespasser who afterwards obtains color of title can claim constructively only from the time when the title was obtained ; Jackson v. Thomas, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 293. If one by mistake enclose the land of an other, and claim it as his own to certain fix ed monuments or boundaries, his actual and uninterrupted possession as owner for the statutory period will work a disseisin, and his title will be perfect; Levy v. Yerga, 25 Neb. 764, 41 N. W. 773, 13 Am. St. Rep. 525 ; White v. Spreckels, 75 Cal. 610, 17 Pac. 715 ; Erck v. Church, 87 Tenn. 575, 11 S. W. 794, 4 L. R. A. 641.
This doctrine of constructive possession, however, applies only to land taken posses sion of for the ordinary purpose of cultiva tion and use, and not to a case where a few acres are taken possession of in an unculti vated township for the mere purpose of thereby gaining title to the entire township ; Chandler v. Spear, 22 Vt. 388 ; Jackson v. Woodruff, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 286, 13 Am. Dec. 525.
In fine, with a little relaxation of strict ness in the case of wild, remote, and un cultivated lands, the sort of possession nec essary to acquire title is adverse, open, pub lic, and notorious, and not clandestine and secret ; possession, exclusive, uninterrupted, definite as to boundaries, and fixed as to its locality.
Color of title is anything in writing, how ever defective, connected with the title, which serves to define the extent of the claim ; Lea v. Copper Co., 21 How. (U. S.) 493, 16 L. Ed. 203 ; Dickenson v. Breeden, 30 Ill. 279 ; North v. Hammer, 34 Wis. 425 ; Walls v. Smith, 19 Ga. 8 ; Swift v. Mulkey, 17. Or. 532, 21 Pac. 871; and it may exist even without writing, if the facts and circumstances show clearly the character and extent of the claim ; Mc Clellan v. Kellogg, 17 Ill. 498 ; Ang. Lim. §
404.
It exists wherever there is a reasonable doubt regarding the validity of an apparent title, whether such doubt arises from the circumstances under which the land is held, the identity of the land conveyed, or the construction of the instrument under which the party In possession claims title; Cameron v. U. S., 148 U. S. 301, 13 Sup. Ct. 595, 37 L. Ed. 459.
A fraudulent deed, if accepted in good faith, gives color of title ; Gregg v. Sayre, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 244, 8 L. Ed. 932; so does a de fective deed; 4 H. & M'H. 222 ; Edgerton v. Bird, 6 Wis. 527, 70 Am. Dec. 473 ; unless defective in defining the limits of the land ; Jackson v. Woodruff, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 276, 13 Am. Dec. 525; so does an improperly execut ed deed, if the grantor believes he has title thereby ; Sumner v. Stevens, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 337 ; so does a sheriff's deed; Doe v. Roe, 22 Ga. 56; Northrop v. Wright, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 476; and a deed from a collector of taxes ; City of Chicago v. Middlebrooke, 143 Ill. 265, 32 N. E. 457 ; Lantry v. Parker, 37 Neb. 353, 55 N. W. 962; Ward v. Huggins, 7 Wash. 617, 32 Pac. 740, 1015, 36 Pac. 285 ; Redfield v. Parks, 132 U. S. 239, 10 Sup. Ct. 83, 33 L. Ed. 327; unless defective on its face; Bart lett v. Kauder, 97 Mo. 356, 11 S. W. 67; but see Wilson v. Atkinson, 77 Cal. 485, 20 Pac. 66, 11 Am. St. Rep. 299; and a deed from an attorney who has no authority to convey ; Hill's Heirs v. Wilton's Heirs, 6 N. C. 14; Munro v. Merchant, 28 N, Y. 9; and a deed founded on a voidable decree in chancery ; Whiteside v. Singleton, Meigs (Tenn.) 207; and a deed, by one tenant in common, of the whole estate, to a third per son ; 4 D. & B. 54; Weisinger v. Murphy, 2 Head (Tenn.) 674; and a deed by an infant ; 4 D. & B. 289; and a deed made by a hus band and wife of the wife's interest in a former husband's estate; Irey v. Markey, 132 Ind. 546, 32 N. E. 309.
So possession, in good faith, under a void grant from the state, gives color of title; Moody v. Fleming, 4 Ga. 115, 48 Am. Dec. 210. And if A purchases under an execution against B, takes a deed, and on the same day conveys to B, though the purchase and conveyance be at the request of B, and no money is paid, B has a colorable title; Tubb v. Williams, 7 Humphr. (Tenn.) 367. A will gives color of title ; but if it has but one subscribing witness, and has never been proved, it does not ; Doe v. Sherman, 27 N. C. 711. Nor does the sale by an administra tor of the land of his solvent intestate, un der a license of the probate court, unless ac companied by a deed from the administra tor ; Livingston v. Pendergast, 34 N. H. 544. Nor does the sale of property by an intestate to his son, of which the possession is held by the wife, who is administratrix, while the son lives in the family, as against the in testate's creditors ; Snodgrass v. Andrews, 30 Miss. 472, 64 Am. Dec. 169. A person taking possession under a judicial sale has color of title, though the judicial proceedings were void ; Irey v. Mater, 134 Ind. 238, 33 N. E. 1018; Mullan's Adm'r v. Carper, 37 W. Va. 215, 16 S. E. 527.