Cited by

We have stated that hostile possession “is manifested by [the disseizor’s] acts in improving and occupying it under such apparent claim.” Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81, 84 , 16 N.W.

In Kelley v. Green, 142 Minn. 82, 86 , , we quoted with approval the language of Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , : “* * * ‘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 th

Deacon v. Haugen, 182 Minn. 540 , ; Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , .

1927, § 9187) provides: “No action for the recovery of real estate, or the possession thereof, shall be maintained unless it appears that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor or grantor, was seized or possessed of the premises in question within fifteen (15) years before the beginning of the action.” In Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , , the point here relied upon by appellants was there the decisive one.

He relies strongly on Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , , in support of that position.

Hence, the user “not being adverse in its inception, does not become so until notice or an assertion of an adverse claim.” Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81, 85 , .

In Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , , the syllabus reads: “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 purpose

The holding of this court in Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , , is pertinent.

Dean v. Goddard, 55 Minn. 290 , ; Seymour v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , ; Sawbridge v. Fergus Falls, 101 Minn. 378 , .

“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.” Seymour v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , .

345 ; Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , .

In the case of Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , , the defendant or his grantor entered upon the disputed parcel of land and held actual possession thereof claiming title thereto under a mistake as to the location of the boundary, line between his land and the adjoining land of the plaintiff.

It seems to us that these contentions are completely answered in the case of Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , .

But on this point, and to the extent of that part of the disputed strip covered by the wall of the building, the case cannot be distinguished from Seymour v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , ( 16 N. W. Rep.

In principle the case is like that of Seymour v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81 , ( 16 N. W. Rep.