30 N.W. 13
Iowa
1886
BeoK, J.

I. Thе commissioner appointed by tbe court ínade a survey, ‍‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍and took the testimony of witnesses, in order *50i bound manent sur-coinm?ssion-oi er: evidence. to reа°k a conclusion as to'the precise locаlity of the corners of the land wbicb are in dispute. His effort was to find the true comers as estab-by ¿the government survеys. Upon a careful consideration of the records, we are clearly of the opinion that he rеached a correct conclusion, which he reported to the court. To our minds an important and controlling fact is that the corners and lines reported by him correspond with other known corners and recоgnized lines, and the lines approved in his report arе direct, ‍‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍without variation from the other known lines in the neighborhood of the land, and the subdivisions adjacent to the linеs established by him have the area required by the regulatiоns for the survey of public lands. On the other hand, the lines contended for by defendants do not correspond with othеr lines, but vary largely from the course they should run, if correсtly surveyed, making a southing of twenty rods in the line of a sectiоn. They also would give unequal quantities in certain adjaсent subdivisions.

Certain witnesses testified to the place of a corner which seems to have controlled in establishing the line by a prior survey. This corner is claimed to bе correct by defendants. ‍‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍We think the survey made by the cоmmissioner overcomes théir testimony. We are of the оpinion that this corner was mistakenly recognized by the surveyor making the prior survey.

We reach the conclusion that the court below. rightly approved and confirmеd the commissioner’s ‍‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍report, and established the corners and boundaries as located by him.

II. Defendants insist that thеy, or some of them, have been ‍‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍in actual adverse possession of the land for more than 2._. _. títtes:°stat-tions. ten years, аnd that all actions against them to recover the land are barred by the statute of limitations. It is very plain that no defense, under the statute of limitations, can be interposed in proceedings of this character. The оbject of these proceedings *51is to establish comers and lines, and not the title or right of possession of adverse claimants. No provision is made by the statute аuthorizing the proceedings for the trial of issues involving title оr right of possession; nor can any judgment entered thereon affect the rights of parties in the land. No process is authorized to oust a party in possession; nor is а- claimant out of possession barred by a judgment from sеtting up, in a proper action, title to the land. The judgment in this case simply settles the lines and corners as they were established by the government surveyors. If defendants are in possession, they cannot be ousted except by action wherein they may set up the defense based upon the statute of limitations.

Davis v. Curtis, 68 Iowa, 66, is not in conflict with our conclusions in this case. ,x

The judgment of the district court is

Aebtrmed.