
    Joseph Clark versus James Faunce et al.
    
    Adverse possession of land for twenty years does not of itself raise a presumption of a grant to the tenant; but where, in addition, the demandant occupied land adjoining, and took a deed of mortgage of the land in question referring for a description to a deed in which it was described as having been bought of the demandant, it was held) that the jury were warranted in making such a presumption
    Entry sur disseisin; plea, nul disseisin.
    
    At the trial, before Putnam J., the demandant proved his seisin and occupation of the land demanded, for about ten years from 1793, under a deed of that date.
    The tenants proved that Joseph Faunce, the brother of James, entered on the land more than twenty years before the date of the writ, claiming it as his own, and continued to claim and possess it until February 1804, when by a deed duly acknowledged and recorded, he conveyed it to James, describing it as having been bought by him of the demandant, and that thereupon James entered, claiming and occupying the land ever afterwards as his soil and freehold. During all this time, the demandant lived near and occupied land adjoining the land in question, and suffered Joseph F. and James to occupy as above mentioned, without molestation, and also took from the tenants a deed of mortgage, since cancelled, dated August 9, 1806, purporting to convey, among other estate, £t all the land that said James purchased of Joseph Faunce by virtue of a deed dated February 23, 1804,” referring to that deed and to a division of lands, for further descriptions.
    The jury were instructed, that if from the facts proved they were satisfied that the demandant had given a deed of the demanded premises to Joseph Faunce, they should find a verdict for the tenants. A verdict being returned for the tenants, the demandant filed his exceptions to this instruction.
    
      Wood supported the exceptions
    
      W. Baylies, contra,
    
    was stopped by the Court. He cited however, Ricard v. Williams, 7 Wheat. 109.
   Per Curiam.

We think the instruction of the judge was fight. Under, the circumstances proved, the presumption that a grant had been made to Joseph Faunce was certainly violent. The counsel for the demandant is right, in supposing that mere adverse possession for twenty years, though sufficient for the presumption of a grant of an easement, will not raise a presumption of title by grant to land;* but such a presumption may be drawn from other facts, and the possession under such circumstances is strongly corroborative of the presumption.

Judgment according to verdict. 
      
      
        Balling v. Mayor, 3 Randolph, 563; Holyoke v. Haskins, 5 Pick. 27; 2 Stark. Ev. (5th Amer. ed.) 675, 676; Fenwick v. Reed, 5 Barn. & Ald. 232; Jackson v. Moore, 6 Cowen, 706; Hurst v. M'Neil, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 70. See Farrar v. Merrill, 1 Greenl. 17; Tenney v. Jones, 3 Moore & Scott, 472; Matthews on Presump. (Rand’s ed.) 296 to 315; Courcier v. Graham, 1 Ohio R. 349.
     