adverse claim in North Dakota

1916Then again: “It was not necessary that Russell and the land company should, have been in the open, visible, and notorious possession of the land sufficient to raise a presumption of notice to Mears and wife [record owners] that their rights were invaded by them with a purpose to assert an adverse claim of title thereto, as the evidence clearly discloses that Hears and wife, by their conduct, must have had actual knowledge of appellants’ hostile claim.” And for the same reasons Nash v. Northwest Land Co. 15 N. D. 566 , 108 N. W. 792 , is not an authority in this case, as disclosed by the follow

1916Then again: “It was not necessary that Russell and the land company should, have been in the open, visible, and notorious possession of the land sufficient to raise a presumption of notice to Mears and wife [record owners] that their rights were invaded by them with a purpose to assert an adverse claim of title thereto, as the evidence clearly discloses that Hears and wife, by their conduct, must have had actual knowledge of appellants’ hostile claim.” And for the same reasons Nash v. Northwest Land Co. 15 N. D. 566 , 108 N. W. 792 , is not an authority in this case, as disclosed by the follow

1982Cranston v. Winters, supra. In order to be adverse, the acts upon which the claimant relies must not only be actual “but also visible, continuous, notorious, distinct, and hostile and of such character as to unmistakably indicate an assertion of claim of exclusive ownership by the occupant.” Martin v. Rippel, 152 N.W.2d 332, 338 (N.D.1967).

1982The case of Gerhard v. Stephens, 69 Cal.Rptr. at 640 , 442 P.2d at 720 indicates that the drilling or other mining activities must be “sufficient to impart to the true owner notice of an adverse claim.” 3 To be entitled to a decree of adverse possession requires that the property of another be held by open and hostile possession for a specified time.

1982The case of Gerhard v. Stephens, 69 Cal.Rptr. at 640 , 442 P.2d at 720 indicates that the drilling or other mining activities must be “sufficient to impart to the true owner notice of an adverse claim.” 3 To be entitled to a decree of adverse possession requires that the property of another be held by open and hostile possession for a specified time.

1956Vandeusen v. Scissam, 3 Johns., N.Y., 499. “ ‘This presumption may be rebutted, but to do so effectually, and initiate an adverse holding, the tenant must surrender the possession to the landlord, or do something equivalent to that, and bring home to him knowledge of the adverse claim.’ ” Bedlow v. New York Floating Dry-Dock Co., 112 N.Y. 263 , 19 N.E. 800, 811 , 2 L.R.A. 629 , 636; Whiting v. Edmunds, 94 N.Y. 309 .

1956Vandeusen v. Scissam, 3 Johns., N.Y., 499. “ ‘This presumption may be rebutted, but to do so effectually, and initiate an adverse holding, the tenant must surrender the possession to the landlord, or do something equivalent to that, and bring home to him knowledge of the adverse claim.’ ” Bedlow v. New York Floating Dry-Dock Co., 112 N.Y. 263 , 19 N.E. 800, 811 , 2 L.R.A. 629 , 636; Whiting v. Edmunds, 94 N.Y. 309 .

1956Vandeusen v. Scissam, 3 Johns., N.Y., 499. “ ‘This presumption may be rebutted, but to do so effectually, and initiate an adverse holding, the tenant must surrender the possession to the landlord, or do something equivalent to that, and bring home to him knowledge of the adverse claim.’ ” Bedlow v. New York Floating Dry-Dock Co., 112 N.Y. 263 , 19 N.E. 800, 811 , 2 L.R.A. 629 , 636; Whiting v. Edmunds, 94 N.Y. 309 .

1917Pl. & Pr. 290; Burleigh v. Hecht, .supra.

1906Blakemore v. Roberts, 12 N. D. 394 , 96 N. W. 1029 .

1906Blakemore v. Roberts, 12 N. D. 394 , 96 N. W. 1029 .

1906I said above that the Indiana case (Cassell v. Lowry [Ind. Sup.] 72 N. E. 640 ) was the only case in point cited in the majority opinion.