Adverse Possession - What Acts of Strangers Constitute an Interruption - Claimant by adverse possession showed that he had fenced in the land in controversy, and had used it for pasturing cattle during a period sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Limitations. Defendant offered evidence to show that strangers had trapped upon this land during the greater part of this period, and that one party in particular had repeatedly set traps there over protests of the adverse claimant, and that no action had been successfully prosecuted against hi,-although adverse claimant had threatened to prosecute. It did not appear whether the trespasses were repeated after this time. Held, that adverse possession had been made out, and that the acts of strangers referred to did not constitute an interruption. Bloodsworth v. Murray, (Md., 1921), 114 Atl. 575.
Michigan Law Review,
Recent Important Decisions,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol20/iss4/5