THOS. H. WILLIAMS, Esq.,.... ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

HARVEY LEE,

REPORTER.

CHARLES S. FAIRFAX, Esq., . . CLERK.

JANUARY TERM.

In an action of ejectment, brought solely on the prior actual possession of the plaintiff, the defendant being a mere trespasser, the latter cannot justify his act by showing the true title to be outstanding in a third person.

But when the plaintiff in ejectment does not rely on prior possession, but on strict title, the defendant in possession, having a good prima facie right, may set up and show the true title to be in another party, for he thereby proves that the plaintiff has no title with which to overcome that which the law presumes to exist in the defendant by virtue of his actual possession.

Prior possession is evidence of title; but this evidence may be destroyed by abandon

ment.

Where the plaintiff relies solely on the possession of his grantor, having no other title, the defendant will be allowed to show that the grantor of the plaintiff, prior to conveying to plaintiff, had abandoned the land.

Such a showing would defeat plaintiff's action, in the same manner as if his grantor had made a prior conveyance to a third party.

In such a case, all the evidence of plaintiff's title rests upon the acts of his grantor, all of which he is bound to know, when another party is, at the time of his purchase, in actual adverse possession.

A party in possession of land is deemed in law the owner, against all persons but one having superior title thereto; possession is evidence of title, and the possessor, in conveying, is deemed to convey the title itself, sufficiently to enable his grantee to maintain ejectment against a mere trespasser.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District.

This was an action of ejectment, to recover the possession of premises, and damages for the detention of the same. The com