Hicks

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A great many questions were raised in the argument upon this record, but the simple proposition on which the case must be decided, makes it unnecessary to review them seriatim.

The action is for the' recovery of land, upon a claim of title based upon prior uninterrupted possession for several years. We have always determined that possession is prima facie evidence of title, and this principle is firmly fixed in all common law jurisprudence. That its efficacy has been impaired by modifications and conditions, by some Judges, *70 in other countries, is clearly manifested by the decisions But, unlike these, I see no reason to depart from the strictest simplicity and directness in the application of the [70] rule. If we should do * otherwise, we tend to destroy its value, and introduce perplexity and uncertainty, which must lead to endless and difficult refinements.

' The question in this case was, then, properly left to the jury by the District Judge, as to the possession and the identity of the land, and upon the evidence, it was clearly the duty of the Court to refuse the nonsuit.

To the shape of the verdict, to the mode of entering judgment,…