Gamalielson v. Hilo Sugar Co.

I concur in the conclusion reached by the court as set forth in the foregoing opinion. Defendant’s motion for a nonsuit as therein disclosed was upon the ground that plaintiff’s evidence showed that defendant had been in possession ,of the land described in the declaration for at least fifteen years, that this possession had not been explained • and' that such unexplained possession for the statutory .period gave rise to a presumption of title in the defendant. Upon this motion the court ruled as follows: “From the state of the evidence and the.law I think the motion for nonsuit should be…