Winans

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We shall not attempt to follow the argument of counsel or pass upon the various points raised on the trial of this cause in the Court below. To do so would involve an amount of labor, which justice to other business of this Court will not admit of, and only lead us into a hasty and inconsiderate expression of opinion upon important principles not properly arising in the case.

The decision of this cause, we think must turn upon a few plain rules, well settled in the books, and heretofore adopted by this Court.

We decided in the case of Hutchinson v. Perley, ante 33, that possession was prima facie evidence of title, and that proof of prior possession was sufficient evidence on which to maintain ejectment against a mere naked trespasser.

What acts of ownership are necessary to constitute possession, and whether it must be an actual tona fide possession or * occupation of the premises claimed, [79] was not necessary for the decision of that or the present cause; no question being made on the record as to the sufficiency of the improvements. Whenever this. point presents itself for our consideration, we will lay down some rule which shall govern…