What is the test for an actual and continued change of possession of a property?

In the case before me I am compelled to the conclusion that under the facts I have stated there was no such actual and continued change of possession as the statute requires, and that the plaintiff must fail on this ground. The language of Wilson, J., in Doyle v. Lasher, 16 C.P. 263, at p. 270, is much in point: “A far different change of possession might have been made. No one could have told in his dealings with the debtor that he was not just as much the owner after the sale as he was before it; nor was the actual power of disposition of the vendor over the property in any respect altered by reason of the sale; nor could the sheriff be aware that any such prior disposal of it had been made. The very mischiefs intended to have been removed and provided against by the statute have all been permitted to continue here.”