¶1Opinion of the Court by
¶2The instructions were wrong and misleading on the first trial, therefore, the court properly granted a new trial.
¶3The first and second instructions given at plaintiff’s instance on the last trial were correct; the third one should also have been given with a modification.
¶4Logan was a mere renter from Clark for a year; he disclaimed both possession and claimed he should, therefore, not be held responsible for all the damages which may have resulted to plaintiff by reason of the detention of the possession, use, cutting timber, etc.
¶5The fourth instruction was erroneous and useless as the first properly expounded the law of the case.
¶6Open and notorious adverse holding after lease expired authorized the presumption of notice to the landlord, and to instruct that actual notice must be given by the adverse claimant in possession is erroneous.
¶7The first and second instructions asked by defendant were properly rejected, and the third properly given.
¶8If the written obligation between Berry and Clark covered the land in contest, then Clark became tenant and cannot deny the title under which he held without an adverse possession of fifteen years. Nor does the Statute of Champerty apply until his title may be matured by such adverse holding as decided in Baley v. Deakin, 5 B. Mon. 161.
¶9On another trial the jury should be permitted to sever the damages, and if the plaintiff should recover the judgment may be for the land as well as for damages.
¶10Bor these errors the judgment is reversed with directions for a new trial, and further proceedings as herein indicated,