## Facts

- Rosenberg v Cook (1881) 8 QBD 162 involved a dispute between two parties asserting rights over the same property.
- Rosenberg, the plaintiff, argued he had a superior claim based on prior possession.
- Cook, the defendant, contested Rosenberg’s claim and argued that his actions did not amount to trespass.
- The case required the court to assess competing property claims and determine the impact of possession versus asserted ownership.

## Issues

1. Whether possession of property without absolute ownership grants a better claim than a trespasser.
2. Whether Rosenberg’s prior possession and intent to control the property established a legally recognized relative title.
3. Whether Cook’s actions constituted a lawful claim to the property or amounted to trespass.

## Decision

- The court held that a person in possession of property generally has a stronger claim than a trespasser, even absent absolute ownership.
- Rosenberg’s prior possession and demonstrated intent to control the property were sufficient to establish a relative title enforceable against Cook.
- Cook’s actions did not establish a lawful claim, and the court ruled in Rosenberg’s favour.

## Legal Principles

- Possession consists of both physical control and the intent to exclude others from the property.
- The doctrine of relative title means that rights in property are determined according to priority between competing claims.
- Prior possession, in the absence of a superior claim, establishes a relative title good against all except one with better title.
- Actual ownership is not required to assert a right against a trespasser; sufficient prior possession will suffice.

## Conclusion

Rosenberg v Cook affirmed that prior possession confers a relative title superior to that of a mere trespasser. The court clarified that demonstrating possession and intent to control is key in resolving property disputes between competing claimants, thereby providing stability and predictability in English property law.