This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1873. Excerpt: ... CHAPTER IV. PARTICULAR TITLES. 1. Possession. It is not necessary that there should always be deeds or wills produced affecting the property in question during the period for which a title is required to be shown. Possession of itself is a sufficient title, and could it always be clearly shown to have been undisturbed, would, no doubt, be the best of titles.1 But as it is difficult to show that possession has never been disturbed, a title where no deeds exist, should be rigidly enquired into and strictly proved.2 In Cottrell v. Watkins,3 the Master of the Rolls said, "I am perfectly satisfied that there are good titles in which the origin cannot be shown by any deed or will; but then you must show something that is satisfactory to the mind of the Court, --that thei-e has been such a long uninterrupted possession, enjoyment and dealing with the property as to afford a reasonable presumption that there is an absolute title in fee simple." In another case4 it was said, "a party seeking to establish a title by possession against a paper title, and thus to usurp the place of the rightful owner, and supplant him, must do so by clear evidence admitting of no reasonable doubt." 1. Lee on Abs. 26; Dart on Vendors, 275. 3. 1 Beav. 365. 4. Law v. Morrison, 14 Grant, 195. 2. Lee on Abs. 27. A title by possession though, less satisfactory than one which can be traced to the patentee from the Crown, is a title which under an ordinary contract of purchase, a purchaser is bound to accept if duly verified.1 Lord St. Leonards, in Scott v. Nixon,2 said, "Can this Court compel a purchaser to take a title depending upon parol evidence of adverse possession, under the new statute? Under the old statute it was long undecided whether a purchaser could be forced to take such a tit...