Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/450

 BROWN V. LEETE. 443 �view. He could not then have contemplated the discovery oî an error, and a future adjustment of the Une to correct it. His expenditure of $1,700 in improving this strip of land is very satisfactory evidence that the line he had marked was then helieved by him to he the true one, and that he claimed title up to it. That there was, in fact, an error made by the defendant when he ran out the line may be true, but having been loeated as the true boundary, and possession taken, and title claimed to it for five years, (the statutory period,) that is certainly sufficient to give the possession an adverse char- acter and bar the plaintiff. �"It cannot be disputed," says the supreme court of Penn- sylvama, "that an occupation up to a fence for 21 years, each party claiming the land on his side as his, gives an incon- testable right up to the fence, and equally whether the fence is precisely on the line or not. It is time that it should be settled beyond dispute that where a person is in possession by a fence as his line, or by a house, or stable, for more than 21 years, his possession establishes his right. A possession, claiming as his own, is in law and reason adverse to ail the •world, and as much so if he bas never heard of an adverse claim as if he had always known of it." Brown v.McKinney, 9 Watt. 565. �Occupation, up to a recognized line, for 15 years, would establish it as the division line. Clark v. Tabor, 28 Vt. 222 ; Angel on Lim. § 398. �In many cases, where title is gained by adverse possession, the entry is founded upon some mistake of fact. Very rarely will it be found that one man has enfcered on the premises of another knowingly, wilfully intending to usurp the possession and acquire title by lapse of time. �One who enters under a void deed and occupies the land, claiming title against the world, possesses adversely ; and if he continues in possession the required time will acquire title, yet his whole possession is founded in mistake as to the valid- ity of his deed. �If, in such case, a mistake as to the whole title does not impair the quality of the possession, how can it be said to do ����