Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/180

144 144 HARVARD LAW REVIEW come to depend for its establishment to a greater or less extent on adverse possession. In spite of our elaborate books of record, possession remains the great source, mmiiment, and quieter of titles to land. The extent of title and estate thus acquired, whether for years, for Ufe, or in fee, is measured by the claim of title. "If the party claim only a limited estate and not a fee, the law will not, contrary to his intentions, enlarge it to a fee." Where a title depends upon possession, the estate evidenced by his possession depends upon the claim of title which he makes by his declarations or his acts.^^ Certain qualifications of the title acquired by adverse possession follow from the fact that it arises from possession. There is an important limitation on the rule that bare possession is title good against all the world except the true owner. American courts hold that a bare possessor of land cannot recover full damages for a permanent injury. In Winchester v. City of Stevens Poinf^^ the defendant constructed a high embankment which caused the flood- ing of plaintiff's lot. The plaintiff recovered in the trial court for the permanent depreciation of her property. She had to rely upon possessory title, as she failed to prove a good paper title owing to the fact that two deeds had only one subscribing witness. It was held that, as in condemnation proceedings, plaintiff must show absolute or complete title and that title will not be presumed for this purpose from evidence of possession under claim of title. Ap- parently plaintiff must show either (i) a complete chain of title from the Government, or (2) title by adverse possession.^^ In a recent Illinois case it is held that where title by adverse possession becomes complete after a cause of action for permanent injury to the land from flooding accrues, the plaintiff corporation '8 Ricard v. Williams, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 59 (1822); Bond v. O'Gara, 177 Mass. 139, 58 N. E. 275 (1900). See Jasperson v. Schamikow, 150 Fed. 571 (1907), 15 L. R. A. (n. s.) 1178 n. " See also the following cases: Waltemeyer v. Wisconsin Ry. Co., 71 Iowa, 626, 33 N. W. 140 (1887); Kelly v. New York Ry. Co., 81 N. Y. 233 (1880); Frisbee v. Marshall, 122 N. C. 760, 765; 30 S. E. 21 (1898); International Ry. Co. v. Ragsdale, 67 Texas, 24, 28, 2 S. W. 515 (1886). Compare the case of the bailee suing for the full value of property lost or destroyed. The Winkfield, [1902] P. 42. U. S. Fidelity, etc. Co. V. United States 246 Fed. 433 (191 7); 31 Harv. L. Rev. 1028, 1029.
 * " Winchester v. City of Stevens Point, 58 Wis. 350, 17 N. W. 3, 547 (1883).