River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-10-16

allowed Phelps to retain the sixty
acres he had actually cleared, fenC'
ed and cultivated, because of his
possession for twenty years, but as
to the rest he secured no rights.
AS Phelps had taken under no
color of title" his rights rested
solely on occupation and he could
make no claim as to parts of a tract
which he did not actually occupy.
Merely making out the boundaries
of eighty acres and occasional ally
walking over them without making
continued use was ruled as not
sufficient where Phelps had had
absolutely no color of right to the
land upon which.he originally set
tied.
More frequently cases involving
the doctrine of adverse possession
| involve but portion of a tract of
land and the cause of the difficulty
is line fence that has been located
in the wrong place. Springer and
Carr owned adjoining places. An
old rail fence separated their fields
Springer secured his farm first and
located the fence by guess work
from an old survey. Carr raised
some question as to whether the
boundry was right, but Springer
Insisted that it was correct. and
right or wrong it was the boundary
between their frams and the one
upon which he would always in
Sist. Knowing little either of the
true state of the boundary or his
rights, Carr let the matter drift
along and the families recognized
the old fence line for over twenty
years. Then the younger Carr in
herited the place on his fathers
death. He mad a survey made and
discovered that the old fence line
was we'll within his true boundary
and that it gave several acres of
valuable land to Springer. Carr
started immediate legal action, but
discovered that his rights had
lapsed, the court ruling that the
land had become Springer by vir-
tue of an adverse possession ex-
tending over a period of twenty
years.
If Springer, being in ignorance of
the true location of the line, had
had no intention of insisting upon
it if it proved not correct upon a
survey, but merely intended TO &C.
cupy it lift was properly his the court
would not have viewed the posses
sion as adverse; that is, not hostile
to Carr, and so the land would not
have been lost to the Carr's. But
Springer having declared an inten-
ton to insist upon the line, right
or wrong, and having maintained
it and used the ground up to the
fence for twenty years took good
title to it by adverse possession.
This emphasizes the requirements
that to amount to adverse pos
session the possession must be
under claim of title.
As has already been stated to
give title TO a "squatter" his ad-
verse possession must continue for
twenty years. Adverse possession
is defined as possession by one
w 10 is not the owner, inconsistent
with the right of possession by the
true owner. No tenant can hold
adversely to his landlord, for his
possession is that of a tenant, not
inconsistent with the rights of an
owner, and the tenant may not
deny his landlords title. Adverse
possession always begins with an
illegal occupation of the land by
one lacking in legal rights of own
ership and possession. AS has
been remarked, the possession
must be adversed, that is, hostile
to the true owner. 1t must be with
in ent TO claim title as opposed to
the true owner, whoever he may be.
One in possession of lands who
claims to hold only until the true
owner appears is not holding ad-
qersely. There must be contin-
uous and absolute claim of owner
ship. That the possession must be
actual, or constructive under.a col
] or of title we have noticed Fur
Their the possession must be open
and notorious, must be of such a
nature that it will call the attention