Opinion of the Court. In French v. Pearce, 8 Connecticut, 439, 440, it was said that "it is the fact of exclusive occupancy, using and enjoying the land as his own, in hostility to the true owner, for the full statutory period, which enables the occupant to acquire an absolute right to the land. In Sparrow v. Hovey, 44 Michigan, 63, a refusal of the court to charge that, when the title is claimed by an adverse possession, it should appear that the possession had been "actual, continued, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile," but merely charging the jury that the possession "must be actual, continued, and visible," was held erroneous. In Pennsylvania, it has been repeatedly held that, to give a title under the statute of limitations, the possession must be "actual, visible, exclusive, notorious, and uninterrupted." Johnston v. Irwin, 3 S. & R. 291; Mercer v. Watson, 1 Watts, 330, 338; Overfield v. Christy, 7 S. & R. 173. In Jackson v. Berner, 48 Illinois, 203, it was held that an adverse possession sufficient to defeat the legal title, where there is no paper title, must be hostile in its inception, and is not to be made out by inference, but by clear and positive proof; and further, that the possession must be such as to show clearly that the party claims the land as his own, openly and exclusively. In Foulk v. Bond, 12 Vroom, (41 N. J. Law,) 527, 545, it was said: "The principles on which the doctrine of title by adverse possession rests are well settled. The possession must be actual and exclusive, adverse and hostile, visible and notorious, continued and uninterrupted." It was held in Cook v. Babcock, 11 Cush. 206, 209, that "when a party claims by a disseizin ripened into a good title by the lapse of time as against the legal owner, he must show an actual, open, exclusive, and adverse possession of the land. All these elements are essential to be proved, and failure to establish any one of them is fatal to the validity of the claim." In Armstrong v. Morrill, 14 Wall. 120, 145, this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Clifford, said: "It is well settled law that the possession, in order that it may bar the recovery, must Opinion of the Court. be continuous and uninterrupted as well as open, notorious, actual, exclusive, and adverse. Such a possession, it is conceded, if continued without interruption for the whole period which is prescribed by the statute for the enforcement of the right of entry, is evidence of a fee, and bars the right of recovery. Independently of positive statute law, such a possession affords a presumption that all the claimants to the land acquiesce in the claim so evidenced." Hogan v. Kurtz, 94 U. S. 773, is to the same effect. The authorities in Nebraska are substantially to the same effect on questions of title by adverse possession. A leading case is Horbach v. Miller, 4 Nebraska, 31, 46, 48, in which it was said that "the elements of all title are possession, the right of possession, and the right of property; hence, if the adverse occupant has maintained an exclusive adverse possession for the full extent of the statutory limit; the statute then vests him with the right of property, which carries with it the right of possession, and therefore the title becomes in him. The submission of the case to the jury correctly was that if they believed, from the evidence, that the plaintiff in error, for ten years next before the commencement of the action, was in the actual, continued, and notorious possession of the land in controversy, claiming the same as his own against all persons, they must find for the plaintiff in error." In Gatling v. Lane, 17 Nebraska, 77, 82, the language used was: "A person who enters upon the land of another with the intention of occupying the same as his own, and carries that intention into effect by open, notorious, exclusive adverse possession for ten years, thereby disseizes the owner." In Parker v. Starr, 21 Nebraska, 680, 683, a recovery was sustained where the testimony clearly showed that "the defendant and those under whom he claims have been in the open, notorious, and exclusive possession for ten years next before the suit was brought." In Ballard v. Hansen, 33 Nebraska, 861, 864, the following instructions, which had been given in the trial court, were approved by the Supreme Court: "The jury are instructed that adverse possession, as relied upon by the plaintiffs in this action, is the open, actual, exclusive, notorious, and hostile Opinion of the Court. occupancy of the land, and claim of right, with the intention to hold it as against the true owner and all other parties; such occupancy, if continuous for ten years, ripens into a perfect. title, after which it is immaterial whether the possession be continued or not." "If you find and believe, from a preponderance of the testimony in this case, that the plaintiff was in the actual, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous possession of any of the lots in controversy for ten years, claiming to own and hold them as against all others, as to such lots he is entitled to recover." Tested by these definitions, it is obvious that if the title relied on in this case, by the defendant below, was fully described and characterized by the special verdict, it was defective in two very essential particulars, in that it was not found to have been actual and exclusive. A possession not actual, but constructive; not exclusive, but in participation with the owner or others, falls very far short of that kind of adverse possession which deprives the true owner of his title. Where a special verdict is rendered all the facts essential to entitle a party to a judgment must be found, and a judgment rendered on a special verdict failing to find all the essential facts is erroneous. In Prentice v. Zane's Administrator, 8 How. 470, 483, it was said: "In the Chesapeake Ins. Co. v. Stark, 6 Cranch, 268, and Barnes v. Williams, 11 Wheat. 415, this court has decided that where, in a special verdict, the essential facts are not distinctly found by the jury, although there is sufficient evidence to establish them, the court will not render a judg ment upon such an imperfect special verdict, but will remand the cause to the court below with directions to award a venire de novo." In Hodges v. Easton, 106 U. S. 408, where it was contended that an imperfect special verdict might be pieced out and the missing facts be supplied by reference to the other parts of the record, the same conclusion was reached, and the court below was directed to award a new trial. In the present case, even if the verdict were regarded as a general one, and therefore entitled to be supported by the Opinion of the Court. presumption that sufficient facts existed to sustain it, yet we should feel constrained to reverse the judgment, because of the errors complained of in the eighth, ninth, and tenth assign ments. The plaintiff's counsel requested the court to charge the jury that, in order that possession of land may overcome the title of the true owner, "there must be a concurrence of the following elements: Such possession must be actual, hostile, exclusive, open, notorious, and continuous for the whole period of ten years. Every element in this enumeration is absolutely essential, and if one of these elements does not exist there can be no adverse title acquired;" and the court did so charge; but the court then proceeded to say that, after having disposed of the written instructions, "I propose to go outside of what is there stated and give one on my own motion." Those voluntary instructions given by the learned judge, though correct in most respects, were imperfect in the very particulars in which we have found the special verdict defective. The jury were not told that, to make out the defence, the possession, in addition to certain other features properly specified, must be shown to have been actual and exclusive. This clearly appears in the final instruction, which was in the following terms: "But if you take the other view and find that defendant has a good title and that he is entitled to recover, then I think you ought to go further and find the fact that he entered into the possession of the premises at a certain time, or as near as you can fix it from the testimony; that he occupied the premises; that he continued in possession for more than ten years prior to the commencement of this suit, which was December 4, 1886. You ought to find, if you can, from the testimony about the time that he went into possession, whether he continued in possession, and whether his possession was adverse, continuous, and hostile prior to the commencement of this suit, or whether Flanagan and his grantees, defendants in this suit, continued in possession that long, it is the same as if Flanagan was in possession that long himself. "If you find for the defendant, find when he took posses VOL. CL-39 Syllabus. sion, if you can, and, as near as you can, how long he remained in possession before the commencement of this suit. Then your verdict will be, in addition to that, 'We therefore find that at the commencement of this suit the defendant was the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of the premises in dispute. That disposes of the whole controversy as far as the verdict of the jury is concerned." Nor do we think that this is one of those cases in which erroneous or insufficient instructions in one part of a charge are corrected or supplied by unobjectionable instructions, on the same questions, appearing in another part. It is evident that the attention of the jury must have been withdrawn from the instructions formally given, as requested, to those announced by the judge, as given on his own motion, and it seems evident that this action of the court misguided the jury, and led them to overlook essential questions involved in the Issue they were trying. Smiths v. Shoemaker, 17 Wall. 630; Moores v. National Bank, 104 U. S. 625; Gilman v. Higley, 110 U. S. 47; Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 103. Whether, then, we regard the verdict as a special one, not containing findings sufficient to support the judgment, or as a general one, rendered in pursuance of imperfect instructions, we reach the conclusion that the judgment of the court below must be Reversed and the cause remanded, with instruction to award a venire de novo. HORN v. DETROIT DRY DOCK COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. No. 129. Argued December 5, 1893. - Decided December 18, 1893. In chancery proceedings in the Federal courts, when a plea in bar meets and satisfies all the claims of the bill, and it is sustained, it will, under |