If the boundary between two adjoining owners of realty is in dispute, an oral agreement between them locating such boundary line is not within this clause of the statute,1 according to

7Geer v. Goudy, 174 111. 514; 51 N. E. 623.

8Tunison v. Bradford, 49 N. J. Eq. 210; 22 Atl. 1073.

9 Gallagher v. Gallagher, 31 W. Va. 9; 5 S. E. 297.

10 La Master v. Dickson, 91 Tex. 593; 45 S. W. 1; affirming, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 473; 43 S. W. 911.

11 Allan v. Bemis, 120 la. 172; 94 N. W. 560.

1 Jenkins v. Trager, 40 Fed. 726; Sherman v. King, - Ark. -; 72 S. W. 571; Dierssen v. Nelson, 13S Cal. 394; 71 Pac. 456; Cavanaugh v. Jackson, 91 Cal. 580; 27 Pac. 931; Farr v. Woolfolk, 118 Ga. 277; 45 S. E. 230; Grigsby v. Combs (Ky.), 21 S. W. 37; Smith 70 v. Dudley, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 66; 13 Am. Dee. 222; May v. Baskin, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 428; Diggs v. Kurtz, 132 Mo. 250; 53 Am. St. Rep. 488; 33 S. W. 815; Turner v. Baker, 64 Mo. 218; 27 Am. Rep. 226; Hitcheock v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399; 47 Atl. 269; Terry v. Chandler, 16 N. Y. 354: 69 Am. Dee. 707; Vosburgh v. Teator. 32 X. Y. 561; Hills v. Ludwig, 46 O. S. 373; 24 X. E. 596 (obiters in Bobo v. Richmond, 25 O. S. 115, and in McAffer-ty v. Conover. 7 O. S. 99; 70 Am. Dee. 57, are to the same effect) ; Walker v. Devlin, 2 O. S. 593: Lennox v. Hendricks, 11 Or. 33; 4 Pac. 515; Nichol v. Lytle, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 456; 26 Am. Dec. 240; the weight of authority, at least where possession is taken thereunder.2

In some jurisdictions mere occupation under an oral contract locating a disputed boundary is held insufficient.3 Even in such jurisdictions occupation and making valuable improvements,4 or occupation for the period of limitations by virtue of the contract5 is sufficient.

If, on the other hand, such boundary is not in dispute, a contract between two adjoining land-owners changing the location of the line is a contract for the transfer of the realty between the true line and the line as established, and is within the statute.6