The Plaintiff, having a deed covering the land where the trespass was committed, and being in possession of part within the boundaries of the deed, was in actual possession of the whole. The deed ascertained the extent of the possession. ..Whoever is in possession, may maintain an action of trespass against a wrong-doer to his possession, because it is a *486possessory remedy, founded merely on the possession, an<* ^ i's n°t necessary that the right should come in question—(3 Burr. 1563—1 East 246.) The judgment mus£ j,e affirmed.
Possession alone is sufficient to maintain trespass against a wrong-doer—(1 East 244, Graham v. Feat, and the cases there cited, to wit, 3 Burr. 1563—2 Stra. 1238—Willes 221.) And it is consistent with first principles, and in fact would be strange if it were not so; for wretched would be the policy which required the title to be shewn in every instance where the peaceable possession was disturbed by an intruder who had no right. It would tend to broils and quarrels, and the possessor would resort to force to defend his possession, if the law afforded him no redress. It cannot, therefore, for a moment be doubted, that the law is as stated above $ and for myself, I would go farther, although my brethren do not deem it necessary to express an opinion on the point, that possession is prima fade evidence of title, and until the contrary shall appear, sufficient to maintain an action on the title against a wrongdoer, ex. gr. an action of ejectment. This of course has reference to a case where the title is shewn to be out of the State. I do not deem it necessary to say any thing on constructive possession, for in the case before us, the Plaintiff’s possession was an actual one; possession of any part of a tract of land, there being no conflicting occupation, is an actual, and not a constructive possession, of the whole tract. If any part is adversely occupied under an inferior title, the possession under the good title extends to the actual adverse occupation. Here there was no adverse occupation, and the actual 'possession of the Plaintiff was co-extensive with his deed. A constructive possession is where a person has title, but no possession, and there is no one in possession, it being vacant •, there the title draws to it the possession in law, or by construction of law. I think the rule for a new *487trial should be discharged, and judgment entered for the Plaintiff.
Hail, Judge, concurred.that judgment should be so rendered.