
    Roberts, et. alie, vs. Isaac Roberts.
    A son may hold land adverse to his parent; liowever, in all cases the character of the possession is a question for the jury.
    THIS was an application for the partition of the land of Archibald Roberts, deceased, among his heirs. The defendant had been in possession of a part of the land for fifieen years, which he claimed under the statute of limitations. The part he claimed was designated by 1'nes known to the father of the applicants, and acknowledged by him. The court instructed the jury to find.for the defendant, if they were satisfied that his possession had been adverse to his father, the time prescribed by the act. A verdict was accordingly rendered for the defendant.
    A motion was now made for a new trial, on the ground that the possession of the son could not be adverse to the father. •
    
      Clendinen, for the motion.
    
      James, contra.
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court:

There is no doubt that a son may hold adversely to a parent. Their intimate connection may support a presumption against the claims of the son, but this presumption may be rebutted by evidence.

In all cases, the character of the possession is a question for the jury. In this case, the evidence was conclusive, that the defendant held the land as his own, not as his fathers. The jury have so found, and the verdict cannot, be disturbed.

The motion is refused.

Justices Johnson, Gantt, Nott and Richardson, poneurredi

Justice Colcock dissented.  