Court Opinion

ID: 3493900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 22:01:56.493362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:54:50.315612
License: Public Domain

At the argument I was impressed with the view that the possession of plaintiffs' land by defendant Merrifield's tenant inured to the benefit of the landlord. I am still of the opinion that possession by a tenant holding land under lease or express permission from one assuming rights of a landlord thereover inures to the benefit of the landlord. But possession of land contiguous to that let, assumed by a tenant, without call from his landlord, upon which he is a trespasser, and for which trespass the landlord could not be held liable, does not inure to the landlord's benefit; neither does the tenant acquire title for himself.
Such a case is the one at bar.
I am, therefore, for affirmance.