125 Minn. 365 | Minn. | 1914
Action to determine the boundary line of certain real property in which defendants had judgment and plaintiff appealed.
The facts in brief are as follows: Block 25 of Forest Lake Village ■contains, according to the plat thereof, four lots; 1, 2, and 3 of
The only substantial question presented by the assignments of error is whether the trial court erred in its findings of fact and 'conclusions, of law; in other words, whether the findings of fact are sustained by the evidence. The assignment challenging the admission of certain evidence over the objection of plaintiff is without substantial merit. We therefore turn our attention to the question whether the evidence justified the court in finding a practical location of the line between these lots.
The rules controlling the practical location of a boundary line were fully stated in Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 54 N. W. 740, and in Benz v. City of St. Paul, 89 Minn. 31, 93 N. W. 1038, following the Beardsley case, it was held that the practical location of such line might be established in one of three ways, the second of which, the only one here material, was there expressed as follows:
“The line must have -been expressly agreed upon between the parties claiming the land on both sides thereof, and afterwards acquiesced in.”
The evidence in the case at bar tends clearly to bring the case within that rule. It shows that plaintiff was the owner of all the lots
Judgment affirmed.