The plaintiff claims title to the locus in quo by аdverse possession for twenty years. It is in evidence that hе first entered upon the land in August, 1920; that he occupied it therеafter continuously, under known and visible lines and boundaries, making suсh use of it *142 and taking suck profits eaeb year as it was suscеptible and capable of yielding at tbe time. There is no pretense that tbe plaintiff bad any paper title to tbe land. Tbe trespass of wbicb tbe plaintiff complains occurred on 11 December, 1941, when tbe defendants entered upon tbe land and plowed up about three acres of strawberries. This action was. instituted immediately thereaftеr.
Tbe defendants, on tbe other band, acquired a deed fоr tbe property in May, 1941, and they show title running back to 26 November, 1920. Tbe defendants also offered evidence tending to shоw possession and use' of tbe property by their predecessors in title. Tbe cross-examination of tbe plaintiff indiсated some equivocation as to tbe character of bis possession and bis claim of ownership. Howevеr, tbe conflict in the-evidence has been resolved by tbе jury in favor of tbe plaintiff. It was sufficient to carry tbe casе to the jury.
Indeed, tbe case is strikingly like that of
Locklear v. Savage,
It is tbe bоlding with us, and tbe statute, C. S., 426, so provides, that in actions involving title to real property, where tbe State is not a party, othеr than in trials of protested entries laid for tbe purpose of obtaining-grants, tbe title is conclusively presumed to be оut of tbe State, and neither party is required to show such fact, though either may do so.
Dill Corp. v. Downs,
In actions between individual litigants, as hеre, when one claims title-to land by adverse possessiоn and shows such possession (1)- for seven years under color, or (2) for twenty years without color, either showing is sufficient to establish title in this jurisdiction. C. S., 428 and 430;
Power Co. v. Taylor,
Tbe motion to nonsuit tests tbe sufficiency оf tbe evidence, when considered in its most favorable light fоr tbe plaintiff, to carry tbe case to' tbe jury and to supрort a recovery. Tbe question thus presented by-demurrer, whether interposed at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidenсe, or “upon consideration of all tbe evidence,” C. S., 567, is to be decided by tbe court as a matter of law. "Whether tbe evidence is such as to carry tbe ease to tbе jury is always for
the
court to determine. A demurrer-raises only questiоns of law.
Godwin v. R. R.,
We are not inadvertent to tbe equivocation in tbe plaintiff’s testimony as elicited on cross-examinatiоn. This, however, affected bis credibility
*143
only, and did not justify withdrawing bis evidenсe from the jury. Such was the holding in
Christman v. Hilliard,
There was no error in overruling the motions to nonsuit. Hence, the validity of the trial must be upheld.
No error.