Cited by

Hostility may be demonstrated through “a great variety of acts,” such as “by cultivation, by the erection of buildings, or by other improvements, or by any visible, open use, clearly indicating an actual appropriation of the land to the permanent and exclusive dominion and benefit of the invader[.]”

(affirming adverse-possession finding because the adverse claimant’s use of a “wild and unoccupied” property, which included cutting timber and clearing brush, was constructive use).

See Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135, 138- 39, 46 N.W.

Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 , ; Dean v. Goddard, 55 Minn. 290 , .

These general observations are based largely on Murphy v. Doyle, 37 Minn. 113 , ; Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 , ; Barber v. Robinson, 78 Minn. 193 , ; Wheeler v. Gorman, 80 Minn. 462 , ; and Gaston v. May, 120 Minn. 154 , .

Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 , ; Brown v. Kohout, 61 Minn. 113 , ; Dean v. Goddard, 55 Minn. 290 , ; Glover v. Sage, 87 Minn. 526 , .

As said in Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135, 138 , , 300: “To determine whether particular acts or a course of conduct constitute adverse possession which, if continued, will bar the title of the original owner, regard must be had to the nature or quality of the acts, and to the situation of the property, as well as to the theory upon which the doc

“The acts of the person in possession must be such as to indicate that a permanent occupation and appropriation of the premises are intended, as distinguished from a casual trespass or occupancy for some temporary purpose.” Glover v. Sage, 87 Minn. 526 , ; Young v. Grieb, 95 Minn. 396 , ; Gaston v. May, 120 Minn. 154 , ; Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 , ; Wood v. Springer, 45 Minn. 299 , .

It has been considered, and when the-nature and situation of the lot and the uses to which it was adaptable-during the period of its occupancy (see Murphy v. Doyle, 37 Minn. 113 , ; Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 , )-are kept in mind, we find no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the finding of the trial court referred to must be sustained as against the attack made thereupon by both of the parties to this action.

Of the Cases decided by this court, relied on by plaintiff, Village of Glencoe v. Wadsworth, 48 Minn. 402 , , Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 , , Dean v. Goddard, 55 Minn. 290 , , Brown v. Kohout, 61 Minn. 113 , , and Sawbridge v. City of Fergus Falls, 101 Minn. 378 , , were all cases where the question was whether the evidence supported a decision that the possession was adverse, not whether a contrary

See Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 ; ; Dean v. Goddard, *86 55 Minn. 290 , ; Wheeler v. Gorman, 80 Minn. 462 , ; Dunnell (Minn.) Pr.

Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 , .

The case is distinguishable from Costello *143 v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 , ( 46 N. W. Rep.

Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135 , ( 46 N. W. Rep.