Cited by

387, 389 (1939) (quoting Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199, 205 , 90 N.W.

387 (1939) (close brothers); Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199 , 90 N.W.

As we said in Beitz v. Buendiger, 144 Minn. 52, 54 , , 441: “* * * Reference is made to language found in Collins v. Col-leran, 86 Minn. 199 , , reiterated in the Omodt case, that to convert permissive possession into hostile possession the occupant ‘must make an “explicit disclaimer” of subserviency * * * that this disclaimer must be “clear, unequivocal, and notorious”; and that his possession becomes adverse only upon a “notorious assertion

the existence of a close family relationship between the claimant of land and the record owner, such as existed in the instant case, created the inference, if not the presumption, that the original possession by the claimant of the other’s land was permissive and not adverse; Lustmann v. Lustmann, 204 Minn. 228 , ; O’Boyle v. McHugh, 66 Minn. 390 , ; Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199 , ; and that when such original use was thus permissive it would be presumed to continue as permissive, rather th

Possession or user beginning in permission can become adverse “only upon a notorious assertion of right.” Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199, 204, 205 , .

798 ; Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199 , 204 , 90 N.W.

Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199 , 90 * Johnson v. Hegland, 175 Minn. 592 , .

Beference is made to language found in Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199 , , reiterated in the Omodt case, that to convert permissive possession info hostile possession the occupant “must make an ‘explicit disclaimer’ of *55 subserviency * * * that this disclaimer must be 'clear, unequivocal, and notorious’; and that his possession becomes adverse only upon a 'notorious assert

The law on the subject is summed up by Mr. Justice Collins in Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199, 204 , , as follows: “The true rule is thus stated in one of the leading text-books: ‘The quo animo a possession is taken or held furnishes the true test of its character.

Co., 60 Minn. 100 , ; Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199 , .

The strictest proof of hostile inception of the possession is required.” Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199, 204 , ; Rucker v. Steel-man, 97 Ind.

Plaintiff for a long period of time after the alleged gift continued to reside with his father, and it is insisted that the relationship of the parties requires us to treat the possession of the property as permissive, rather than adverse to the father’s rights, under the rule laid down in Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199 , , and O’Boyle v. McHugh, 66 Minn. 390 , .

Under the rules laid down in Todd v. Weed, 84 Minn. 4 , , and Collins v. Colleran, 86 Minn. 199 , , it is obvious that the court below was justified in finding, at least as to lot No.'9 in block No. 2, that this appellant had not acquired title by adverse possession.