Cited by

495 (1883): “* * * ‘Where one of two adjoining owners takes and holds actual possession of land beyond the boundary of his own lot or tract, under a claim of title thereto as being a part of his own land, though under a mistake as to the location of the boundary line, such possession, for the purposes of the statute, is to be deemed adverse to the true owner and a disseizin.’ ” In Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102, 104 , this court said: “* * * adverse intent to oust the owner and possess for *190 him

While it is true that assertion of adverse title need not be always expressly or affirmatively declared, but may be shown by circumstances, Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , ; Beitz v. Buen-diger, 144 Minn. 52 , , proof of inception of hostility must in all cases be clear and unequivocal.

In Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , , the' court said [at p. 104]: “An adverse intent to oust the owner and possess for himself may be generally evidenced by the character of the possession and the acts of ownership of the occupant.

Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , ; Kelly v. Palmer, 91 Minn. 133 , ; Sawbridge v. City of Fergus Falls, 101 Minn. 378 , ; Gaston v. May, 120 Minn. 154 , .

Carpenter v. Coles, 75 Minn. 9 , ; Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , ; Mattson v. Warner, 115 Minn. 520 , ; Rupley v. Fraser, 132 Minn. 311 , ; Cain v. Highland Co. 134 Minn. 430 , .

N. W. 1127; Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , ; Carpenter v. Coles, 75 Minn. 9 , .

Carpenter v. Coles, 75 Minn. 9 , ; Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , ; Mattson v. Warner, 115 Minn. 520 , .

The case of Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , , is the only one cited where this court has refused to sustain the findings of a trial court or the verdict of a jury holding that the possession was not adverse, hostile, or under claim of title.

It is conceded by both parties that under the authority of Pine County v. Lambert, 57 Minn; 203, , Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , , and Kipp v. Elwell, 65 Minn. 525 , , the statute had run as to a large portion of the taxes involved in the judgment, and the only question is whether the judgment was void.

Sherin v. Brackett, 36 Minn. 152 , ; Carpenter *298 v. Coles, 75 Minn. 9 , ; Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 104 , .

Pine Co. v. Lambert, 57 Minn. 203 , ; Kipp v. Elwell, 65 Minn. 525 , ; Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , .

It has recently been affirmed in Cool v. Kelly, 78 Minn. 102 , and we are satisfied that it is right.