Cited by

“The possession of successive occupants, if there is privity between them, may be tacked to make adverse possession for the requisite period.” Ebenhoh, d at 109 ().

922, 923-24 (Minn. 1919) (observing that a row of trees was treated as the boundary line for 26 years prior to discovering this may not actually be the boundary); -59 (Minn. 1926) (determining that a fence built by the previous owner was not the boundary line despite the parties mistakenly believing it was).

271, 272 (Minn. 1927) (observing that “both parties believed [a fence] was located on the true boundary line between their respective holdings” until a survey revealed a different boundary); Fredericksen v. Henke, 209 N.W. 257, 258-59 (Minn. 1926) (concluding that a decades-old fence built by a previous owner resulted in a party mistakenly claiming that the fence was the proper boundary line); Kelley v. Green, 170 N.W.

922 (Minn. 1919), Riley v. Kump, 212 N.W.

167 Minn. 356, 361, 209 N.W.

Because it is well-established that “continuous” possession is not required to maintain adverse possession once the disseizor of the property has acquired title by adverse possession, see Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356, 361, 209 N.W.

“The possession of successive occupants, if there is privity between them, may be tacked to make adverse possession for the requisite period.” Ebenhoh, d at 109 (citations omitted) (quoting Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356, 360, 209 N.W.

“The possession of successive occupants, if there is privity between them, may be tacked to make adverse possession for the requisite period.” Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356, 360 , 209 N.W.

Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356, 360 , 209 N.W.

Mellenthin v. Brantman, 211 Minn. 336 , Skala v. Lindbeck, 171 Minn. 410 , Riley v. Kump, 170 Minn. 58 , Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , , 46 A. L. R. 785 (1926); Kelley v. Green, 142 Minn. 82

402 .” In Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356, 359 , , 46 A. L. R. 785, 787, it was said: “* * * T0 constitute adverse possession it is not essential that the adverse possessor actually live upon the land which he claims.

Dean v. Goddard, 55 Minn. 290 , ; McArthur v. Clark, 86 Minn. 165 , ; Ross v. Cale, 94 Minn. 513 , ; Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , , 46 A. L. R. 785; Mellenthin v. Brantman, 211 Minn. 336 , 1 N. W. (2d) 141 .

5 Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , , 46 A. L. R. 785; see, 11 Minn. L. Rev. 457 .

Gehan v. Morgan, 189 Minn. 250 , 248 N. W. *546 820; Kelley v. Green, 142 Minn. 82 , ; Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , , 46 A. L. R. 785; Stevens v. Velde, 138 Minn. 59 , ; Ramsey v. Glenny, 45 Minn. 401 , , 22 A. S. R. 736; Brown v. Morgan, 44 Minn. 432 , ; 1 Am.

re 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.” To the same effect is Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , 259 , 16 A. L. R. 785, where the court held ( 167 Minn. 359 ): *341 “To constitute a

eizor or his grantee is suffered to remain continuously in possession for the statutory period, the remedy of the former is extinguished.” That principle was followed in Brown v. Morgan, 44 Minn. 432 , ; Ramsey v. Glenny, 45 Minn. 401 , , 22 A. S. R. 736; Weeks v. Upton, 99 Minn. 410 , ; Kelley v. Green, 142 Minn. 82 , ; Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , , 46 A. L. R. 785; Glidden Co. v. Twin City H. L. Co. 171 Minn. 160 , .

See particularly Stevens v. Velde, 138 Minn. 59 , ; Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , , 46 A. L. R. 785.

Carpenter v. Coles, 75 Minn. 9 , ; Cain v. Highland Co. 134 Minn. 430 , ; Stevens v. Velde, 138 Minn. 59 , ; Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , , 46 A. L. R. 785; Guaranty T. & T. Corp. v. U. S. 264 U. S. 200 , 44 S. Ct. 252 , 68 L. ed. 636.

Kelley v. Green, 142 Minn. 82 , ; Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , , 46 A. L. R. 785.

Ramsey v. Glenny, supra; Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, supra; Fredericksen v. Henke, 167 Minn. 356 , , 46 A. L. R. 785.