2390 ARTICLE 75.

An. Code, sec. 78. 1904, sec. 78. 1888, sec. 75. 1833, ch. 276, sec. 3.

83. If, on the trial of an ejectment, title be shown in any of the plain-
tiffs, it shall be sufficient to authorize him to recover to the extent of such
title, though other plaintiffs may be joined who have no interest, or may
have parted with their interest.

Since the passage of this and preceding section, the objection that plaintiffs could
not recover an undivided three-fourths interest in land under a declaration in which
they claim entire tract cannot be maintained. Matthews v. Turner, 64 Md. 121.

See notes to sec. 76.

An. Code, sec. 79. 1904, sec. 79. 1888, sec. 76. 1852, ch. 177, sec. 2.

84. In all actions at law, where the title to land is in question, it shall
not be necessary for any party to any such action to prove that the lands
in controversy have been patented; but a patent shall in all cases be pre-
sumed in favor of the party showing a title otherwise good; and actual
enclosure shall not be necessary to prove possession, but acts of exclusive
user and ownership, other than enclosure, may be given in evidence to the
jury to prove possession.

Except for omission of courses and distances it would not have been necessary
in action of trespass q. c. f., to have offered a patent in evidence in view of this
section. Since plaintiffs and those under whom they claim held title to lot since
1855, law would presume a patent. Malone v. Long, 128 Md. 381.

This section is constitutional and valid, but being in contravention of common
law will not be construed very liberally. Proof of possession. What amounts to
acts of user and ownership? Possession is a question of law to be determined upon
the facts. Evidence. Thistle v. Frostburg Coal Co., 10 Md. 144. And see Safe
Deposit Co. v. Marburg, 110 Md. 414.

This section so far as it applies to trespass, q. c. f., does not alter law save to
enlarge evidence to prove adversary possession; it does not diminish time in which
to establish a possessory title. Ridgely v. Bond, 17 Md. 23.

The portion of this section dispensing with the necessity of actual enclosure,
applied. Warner v. Hardy, 6 Md. 539.

The rule requiring the plaintiff to show a good legal title is gratified by the proof
of a title prima jade good. Joseph v. Bonaparte, 118 Md. 594.

Although actual enclosure is not necessary to prove possession, when one is erected
by a party relying on title by prescription, it is some evidence tending to show the
character of his claim. Storr v. James, 84 Md. 290.

This section will not be construed retroactively so as to divert title to property
acquired before its passage. Newman v. Young, 30 Md. 420; Thistle v. Frostburg
Co., 10 Md. 144; Safe Deposit Co. v. Marburg, 110 Md. 414.

This section referred to in discussing the law prior to its adoption. Lurman v.
Hubner, 75 Md. 270; Carter v. Woolfork, 71 Md. 286; Baker v. Swan, 32 Md. 358;
Thistle v. Frostburg Co., 10 Md. 129; Houck v. Loveall, 8 Md. 70; Hoye v. Swan,
5 Md. 237; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1 Md. 52.

See sec. 26, and notes to sec. 76.

As to adverse possession as a bar to title under patents, see art. 57, sec. 10.

An. Code, sec. 80. 1904, sec. 80. 1888, sec. 77. 1852, ch. 177, sec. 3. 1924, ch. 435.

85. No warrant of resurvey shall issue in any action of ejectment
unless the Court shall be satisfied that there is a dispute about the loca
tion of the lands claimed in said action; nor shall any issue in other actions
unless there is a dispute about the location of the lands for the injury of
which damages are claimed, or unless the Court shall be satisfied that plats
are necessary for illustration; and all warrants of resurvey shall hereafter
issue to the surveyor alone, and all the duties heretofore performed by