Possession as a Root of Title

Abstract

In these days when nearly every transaction connected with 'land is committed to writing there is a tendency to overlook the importance attached by the law to mere possession, but nevertheless possession still remains a root of title.In very early days, no doubt, possession was practically the only title to land: he was the owner who, with his retainers, was strong enough to take, and then to retain, possession.And in the more civilized of ancient communities land was transferred from one person to another by physical possession being given in the presence of witnesses.A record of what was done might be drawn up and signed, as in the case of livery of seisin, but the writing did not constitute the title to the land; it was merely evidence in support of the title.If a person today enters upon and takes possession of a parcel of land, without any title or even color of title thereto, but merely .as a wrongdoer, what is his position in the eyes of the law?At first no doubt he is a mere trespasser, and could be evicted by the true owner, or by any person, not being the true owner, who was in possession of the land.But this latter person may himself have originally been a mere trespasser.This raises the question, At what point of time does the original taking of possession by a stranger to the title cease to be regarded as a mere trespass, and evolve into the "possession" that is so respected by the law?The answer appears to be, When he has remained for some time .inpeaceable possession of the land, exercising with respect to it the ordinary rights of an occupier.In Doe d.Hughes v. DyeballT the plaintiff in ejectment proved .alease to himself and a year's possession, and rested his case there.The defendant, who had forcibly taken possession, objected that no title was proved in the demising parties to the lease.Lord Tenterten, C. J., said, "That does not signify; there is ample proof; the plaintiff is in possession, and you come and turn -him out: you must show your title."