Response or Comment
As the possession of the claimant in a case of adverse possession must be shown to have been adverse in order to ripen into title, so also must the user in prescription be shown to have been adverse during the entire prescriptive period. As to the burden of proving the adverse character of the possession in the first case there seems to be doubt whether there is a presumption of adverseness by showing open possession and acts of ownership, or whether there is a burden upon the claimant to go further. See 2 AM. & ENG. ENCY. L. & P. 392, and cases there cited. The usual doctrine would seem to be that it is sufficient for the claimant to prove the fact of possession together with acts of ownership, as for instance, the taking of the profits of the land. Of course in order to acquire title he must show that his possession had the further characteristics of openness, continuity, exclusiveness, etc. But generally speaking, facts of the nature above indicated are sufficient to show the hostile or adverse character of his possession. As to the situation when the possession has been due to a mistaken belief as to ownership see 11 MICH. L. R1. 57.
Aigler, Ralph W. "The Character of User in Prescription." Mich. L. Rev. 11 (1913): 384-6.