
    Goodwin versus Sawyer & al.
    
    A continued occupation of land for twenty years gives title to tlie occupant, unless such, occupation be shown to have been in subserviency to title in another.
    Such occupation, to give title, need not be personal. It may be by agent or tenant.
    On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Tenney, J.
    Writ oe Entry.
    The material facts, as found by the jury upon the evidence, were as follows : —
    Mrs. Mary Wingate occupied the land from the year 1814 to 1835; viz, from 1814 to 1825, personally and from that time to 1835, by her son Edmund Wingate, as tenant under her. In 1835, she conveyed it to William Wingate under whom the demandant claims.
    In 1821, Joseph Woodman, the father of Mrs. Wingate, mortgaged the land to John Holmes, and Holmes, in 1823, assigned the mortgage to Joseph Woodman, jr. But the case does not show, that the tenants have in any way connected themselves with that mortgage.
    The instructions to the jury were, that if the persons, occupying the land after 1825, held in submission to the claim of Mrs. Wingate, their occupation was not a disseizin; that such a holding could not give title as against her; and, that the mortgage, unless followed by possession under it, would not impair the right acquired by the occupation of Mrs. Wiiigate. Verdict for demandant. Exceptions by tenants.
    
      Wilkinson and Talley, for the tenants.
    The demandant must recover upon the strength of his own title. He had none, except under Mrs. Wingate. And she had none except by possession. The land belonged to Joseph Woodman. It does not appear, that she disseized him. Her occupation may have been by his permission. The case then fails to show that she ever acquired title. Tilton v. Hunter, 24 Maine, 32; Bates v. Newcomb 14 Pick. 227; Coburn v. 
      Hollis, 3 Mete. 125; Little v. Libbey, 2 Dane, 25 ; 4 Mass. 418; 8 Wend. 440; 6 Johns. 197; 16 Johns. 293.
    
      Eastman and Chisholm, for the demandant.
   Tenney, J.

— The possession of Mary Wingate of the premises described in the demandant’s writ, from 1814 to 1825, was prima facie evidence of title in her. The occupation of Edmund Wingate afterwards, according to the evidence and the finding of the jury under the instructions, which are not subject to legal objection, did not take away this title. The right of entry remained in her till her conveyance of the land, if she was in fact at all out of possession, and existed in the demandant at the time of the commencement of this action, which can be maintained by R. S. chap. 145, sect. 11, unless the defence shall prevail.

The facts, adduced by the tenants, show no title in Joseph Woodman or those who had any interest in the mortgage from him to John Holmes. Exceptions overruled.

Judgment on the verdict.  