United States v. Fullard-Leo/Dissent Rutledge

, with whom and  concur, dissenting.

I agree with the dissenting judges in the Circuit Court of Appeals that the possession shown on behalf of respondents is not sufficient to establish the presumption of a lost grant, even if title can be acquired from the Government in that manner. According to my understanding, the possession, to have that effect, must be actual, open, notorious, adverse and continuous from the time when the grant is presumed to have taken place. Here for long [p282] periods the possession was constructive at the most, not actual. By the same token it was not continuous. I do not think this Court should expand the established basis [p283] for acquiring title to government lands so as to include acquisition by adverse possession, as in effect the Court's opinion does. Accordingly, I dissent.