Adverse possession
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 36 U.S. 41 - Lessee James Ewing v. Jacob Burnet · 1837Most cited · 234 citing opinions
need not be fenced
it is well settled, that to constitute an adverse possession, there need not be a fence, building or other improvement made; it suffices for this purpose, that visible and notorious acts of ownership are exercised over the premises in controversy, for twenty-one years, after an entry under claim and color of title. So much depends on the nature and situation of the property, the uses to which it can be applied, or to which the owner or claimant may choose to apply it, that it is difficult to lay down any precise rule, adapted to all cases. But it may with safety be said, that where acts of ownership have been done upon land, which, from their nature, indicate a notorious claim of property in it, and are continued for twenty-one years, with the knowledge of an adverse claimant, without interruption, or an adverse entry by him, for twenty-one years; such acts are evidence of an ouster of a former owner, and an actual adverse possession against him.
How the Supreme Court has restated “Adverse possession”
Each Supreme Court definition of “Adverse possession,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “Adverse possession”
Court decisions citing the 6 opinions that defined “Adverse possession” — 498 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 6 definitions, chronological · 1814–1864
- ORIGINAL
By the laws which govern this case, a possession of thirty years under some circumstances, and of fifty years, under any, constitutes a title against all the world.
computation of time
A possession to prevent a recovery, or vest a right, under the statute of limitations, must be actual, continued, adverse and exclusive: and it is a settled principle, that the doctrine of adverse possession is to be taken strictly, and not to be made out by inference, but by clear and positive proof. Every presumption is in favour of possession, in subordination to the title of the true owner; and whenever an adverse possession is relied on, there should be some proof of an actual ouster.
- 1850·49 U.S. 274 - Jonathan Reed v. The Proprietors of Locks and Canals on Merrimac River[p99]· cited 37×
where a deed is indefinite, uncertain, or ambiguous in the description of the boundaries of the land conveyed, the construction given by the parties themselves, as shown by their acts and admissions, is deemed to be the true one, unless the contrary be clearly shown. The difficulty in the application of the descriptive portion of a deed to external objects, usually arises from what is called a latent ambiguity, which has its origin in parol testimony, and must necessarily be solved in the same way.
latent ambiguity in deed
Possession, to be effectual, either to prevent a recovery or vest a right under the statute of limitations, must be an actual possession, attended with a manifest intention to hold and continue it. It must be, in the language of the authorities, an actual, continued, adverse, and exclusive possession for the space of time required by the statute. It need not be continued by the same person; but when held by different persons, it must be shown that a privity existed between them.
Any one in possession, with no claim to the land whatever, must in presumption of law be in possession in amity with and in subservience to that title. Where there is no claim of right, the possession cannot be adverse to the true title.