Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/190

154 154 HARVARD LAW REVIEW owner without privity, it will enure to the benefit of the first as against the last or the intermediate trespasser. In some Canadian cases it is said that the occupation of successive trespassers, following each other without interruption, will be sufficient to bar the true owner, although they are not in privity with each other. ^^ These cases are probably decided on what is supposed to be the Enghsh rule, but there are other Canadian cases holding the other way. Among the American cases most frequently cited as dispensing with privity are the Kentucky decisions of Shannon v. Kinny''^ and Hord v. Walton.^^ In both of these Kentucky cases the first holder jdelded possession to the second by virtue of a judgment or decree, so that the second holder had all the title of the first, and more too. These cases are explained on that ground in the case of Winn V. Wilhite,^^ which recognizes the rule that privity must exist between adverse possessors, for one to acquire the benefit of the occupation of the other, and to prevent a new cause of action from arising.^2 A Connecticut case frequently cited on this point is that of Fanning v. Wilcox.^ That case, also, is a case of recovery of possession in an action of law, which is hardly equivalent to a new disseisin. In Smith v. Chapin ^ it is said:- "Such continuity and connection may be eflFected by any conveyance, agreement, or understanding, which has for its object a transfer of the rights of the possessor, or of his possession, and is accompanied by a transfer of possession in fact. Such an agreement to sell and transfer of possession as were set up in this case, if proved, were sufficient." It is accordingly the law of Connecticut that it is essential that there be privity by conveyance, descent, recovery or delivery of ^* Robinson v.' Osbom, per Riddell, J., obiter, 27 Ont. L. Rep. 248 (1912); 8 D. L. Rep. 1014, 1021 (1912), learned note by E. D. Armour; Kipp v. Synod of Toronto, 33 Up. Can. Rep. 220 (1873); ^/- contra, Simmons v. Shipman, 15 Ont. Rep. 301 (1888); Ryerse v. Teeter, 44 Up. Can. Q. B. 8 (1878); Hamel v. Ross, 3 D. L. Rep. 860 (191 2); (Quebec) Butler t*. Legar6, 7Q. L. Rep. 307 (1881). But see Salter v. Clarke, 4 S. R. (N. S. W.) 280, (1904). " I A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 3 (1817). «o 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 620 (1820). « S J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 521, 524 (1831). " 3 Day (Conn.) 258 (1808). " 31 Conn. 530 (1863).
 * See also Miniard v. Napier, 167 Ky. 208, 180 S. W. 363 (1915).