2. In the Roman law, præscriptio was an exception written in front of the plaintiff's pleading. It became applied exclusively to the præscriptio longi temporis, etc., or the prescription founded on length of possession, which see, below. 3. "When a man can show no other title to what he claims than that he and those under whom he claims have immemorially used to enjoy it." 4 Whence prescriptible, imprescriptible, prescriptive. All prescription must be either in a man and his ancestors, or in a man and those whose estate he has, which last is called prescribing in a que estate (quorum statum). Nothing but incorporeal hereditaments can be claimed by prescription; as, a right of way, or a common. No prescription can give title to lands of which more certain evidence may be had; and it must always be laid in him that is tenant of the fee: since usage beyond time of memory cannot be predicated of any lesser estate. Nor, again, can it be for a thing which cannot be raised by grant: for the law allows prescription only in supply of the loss of agrant, and, therefore, every prescription presupposes a grant to have existed.4 Title by prescription is a right which a possessor of land acquires by reason of his adverse possession during a period of time fixed by law, and where it does not originate in fraud, and is under a claim of right.5 Prescription is a legal fiction to quiet ancient possession. It rests upon the presumption that there was a grant which by lapse of time (usually twenty years) has become lost. The presumption is rebuttable." The doctrine is broader than that of a statute of limitations, although based upon analogous principles of repose to society. "What the primary owner has lost by his laches, 1 Exline v. Smith, 5 Cal. 112 (1885). Peterman v. Huling, 31 Pa. 436 (1858), Strong, J. Sandar's Justinian, 47, 125; Maine, Anc. Law, 275. 42 Bl. Com. 263-66. • Burdell v. Blain, 66 Ga. 170 (1880), Crawford, J. • Folsom v. Freeborn, 13 R. I. 205-7 (1881), cases. Brookline v. Mackintosh, 133 Mass. 226 (1882); Thomas v. England, 71 Cal. 458 (1886). • Bozeman v. Bozeman, 82 Ala. 391 (1886). the other party has gained by continued possession, without question of his right." This is the foundation of the doctrine, which, in the English law, is mainly applied to incorporeal hereditaments, but which in the Roman law, and the codes founded on it, is applied to property of all kinds. See USE, 2, User. 4. To fill a druggist's prescription is to furnish and combine the requisite materials in due proportion as directed.2 When a druggist, in good faith, recommends a prescription as that of another person, and, at the request of his customer, fills it, charging only for the drugs and for compounding them, he is not responsible for injury that may result from the use of the alleged remedy. See DRUGGIST.