TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION 135 TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION Policy and Operation of the Statutes of Limitation 'T^ITLE by adverse possession sounds, at first blush, like title by -*- theft or robbery, a primitive method of acquiring land without paying for it. When the novice is told that by the weight of author- ity not even good faith is a requisite, the doctrine apparently affords an anomalous instance of maturing a wrong into a right contrary to one of the most fundamental axioms of the law. "For true it is, that neither fraud nor might Can make a title where there wanteth right." * The pohcy of statutes of hmitation is something not always clearly appreciated. Dean Ames, in contrasting prescription in the civil law with adverse possession in our law, remarks: "English lawyers regard not the merit of the possessor, but the deiperit of the one out of possession." ^ It has been suggested, on the other hand, that the policy is to reward those using the land in a way beneficial to the community.^ This takes too much account of the individual case. The statute has not for its object to reward the dihgent trespasser for his wrong nor yet to penalize the negligent and dormant owner for sleeping upon his rights; the great purpose is automatically to quiet all titles which are openly and consistently asserted, to provide proof of meritorious titles, and correct errors in conveyancing.* ^ Quoted in Altham's case, 8 Coke Rep. 153, 77 Engl, reprint, 707.
- Lectures, Legal Hist. 197.
- Axel Teisen III, Am. Bar Ass'n Journal, 127, April, 191 7.
- That the policy of the statutes of limitation is the quieting of titles evidenced
by possession for the sake of the stability of meritorious titles, see MTver v. Ragan, 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 25 (181 7); Turpin v. Brannon, 3 McCord, L. 261 (1825); North Pac. R. Co. ir. Ely, 25 Wash. 384, 65 Pac. 555 (1901), Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Smith (Ky.) 125 Ky. 336, loi S. W. 317 (1907); Humbert v. Trinity Church, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 587, 609 (1840); Cholmondeley v. CUnton, 2 J. & W. 139, 155. 189 (1820); Lampman v. Van Alstyne, 94 Wis. 417, 69 N. W. 171 (1896); McCann v. Welch, 106 Wis. 142, 148, 81 N. W. 996 (1900); i Hayes, Conveyancing, 223, 269; Dalton V. Angus, 6 App. Cas. 740, 818 (1881); J. S. Mill, Pol. Econ., Book 2, ch. 2, § 2; 3 So. L. Quart. 224.
