It has been frequently decided that though there is no express agreement as to the location of the boundary line, adjoining proprietors cannot question a line which they have, for a considerable number of years, recognized as the correct line between their properties. Some of the cases base this doctrine upon the theory that such recognition of or "acquiescence" in a certain line is conclusive of the existence of an agreement,67 while others seem rather to regard it as an independent rule of law, dictated by general considerations of justice and expediency, in order that uncertainty and disturbance of boundaries be avoided.68 In a few states, such acquiescence in or recognition of a line as the boundary is merely evidence tending to show that it is such, which may be contradicted.69

121 Mass. 579; Smith v. McCorkle, 105 Mo. 135, 16 S. W. 602; Trussell v. Lewis, 13 Neb. 415, 42 Am. Rep. 767. 14 N. W. 155; Bartlett v. Young, 63 N. H. 265; Hagey v. Detweiler. 35 Pa. St. 40!

67. Clapp v. Churchill, 164 Cal. 741. 130 Pac. 1061; Clayton v. Feig, 179 111. 534, 54 N. E. 149: Keller v. Harrison, 139 Iowa. 383, 116 N. W. 327; Ernsting v Glea-son, 137 Mo. 594, 39 S. W. 70; Alt v. Butz, 81 N. J. L. 156, 79 Atl. 881; Dibble v. Rogers, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 536; Hanstein v. Ferrell, 149 N. C. 240, 62 S. E. 1070; O'Donnell v. Penney, 17 R. I. 164 20 Atl. 305; Galbraith v. Luns-ford, 87 Tenn. 89, 1 L. R. A. 522, 9 S. W. 365; Holmes v. Judge, 31

Utah 2C9, 87 Pac. 1009; George v. Collins, 72 W. Va. 25, 77 S. E. 356: Pickett v. Nelson, 71 Wis. 542, 79 Wis. 9.

68. Sherman v. Kane, 86 N. Y. 57; Baldwin v. Brown, 16 N. Y. 359; O'Donnell v. Penney, 17 R. I. 164, 20 Atl. 305; Miller v. .Mills County, 111 Iowa, 654, 82 N. W. 1038.

09. Bohny v. Petty, 8I Tex. 524, 17 S. W. 80; Whitcomb v. Dutton. 89 Ale. 212'. 36 Atl. 67; Hathaway v. Evans 108 Mass. 267.

Such would seem to be the effect of the decisions that acquiescence in a particular line is not binding if based on a mistaken notion that it is the true line, Ulman v. Clark, 100 Fed. 180:

1000 Real, Property. [Sec. 295

Some of the cases require this acquiescence, in order to be conclusive, to have continued for the length of time fixed by the statute of limitations for the recovery of land, not, apparently, on the view that the case is within the statute, but by way of analogy thereto.70 Others suggest no such requirement, it being stated merely that the acquiescence in the line must have continued for "a considerable time," or equivalent language being used, and no rule as to the number of years being laid down.71 And that the acquiescence or possession need not continue for the limitation period has been explicitly stated.72 The erection and continued existence of a fence has been regarded as showing an acquiescence in the fence as marking the boundary, provided the fence is recognized as a partition fence, and not as an erection for mere purposes of convenience.73

Woodland v. Hodson, 28 Idaho, 45, 152 Pac. 205; Jordan v. Ferree, 101 Iowa, 440, 70 N. W. 611; Schad v. Sharp, 95 Mo. 573, 8 S. W. 549; Hinkley v. Crouse, 125 N. Y. 730, 26 N. E. 452; Contra, Miller v. Mills County, 111 lowa, C54, 82 N. W. 1038.

70. Wheatley v. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co., 169 Cal. 505, 147 Pac. 135; Lowndes v. Wicks, 69 Conn. 15, 36 Atl. 1072; Hellman v Roe, 275 111. 158, 113 N. E. 989; Miller v. Mills County, 111 Iowa, 654, 82 N. W. 1038; O'Don-nell v. Penny, 17 R. I. 164, 20 Atl. 305; Gwynn v. Schwartz, 32 W. Va. 487, 9 S. E. 880. See Richardson v. Chickering, 41 N. H. 380; Mullaney v. Duffy, 145 111. 559, 33 N. E. 750.

71. Lowndes v. Wicks, 69 Conn. 15, 36 Atl. 1072; Palmer v. Dosch,

148 Ind. 10, 47 N. E. 176; Robards v. Rogers, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1017, 48 S. W. 154; Whitcomb v. Dutton, S9 Me. 212, 36 Atl. 67; Smith v. Hamilton, 20 Mich. 433, 4 Am. Rep. 348; Husted v. Willoughby, 117 Mich. 56, 75 N. W. 279; Beards-ley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 54 N. W. 740; Brummell v. Harris, 148 Mo. 430, 50 S. W. 93; Haring v. Van Houten, 22 N. J. L. 61; Katz v. Kaiser, 154 N. Y. 294, 48 N. E. 532; Culbertson v. Duncan, (Pa.) 13 Atl. 966; Coleman v. Smith, 55 Tex. 254; Vallmen v. Ruehle, 100 Wis. 31, 75 N. W- 425.

72. Payne v. McBride, 96 Ark 168, 131 S. W. 463; Adams v. Betz, 167 Ind. 161, 78 N. E. 649; Rinkle v. Welty, 86 Neb. 680, 126 N. W. 139; Purtle v. Bell, 225 Hi. 523, SO N. E. 350.

73. Columbet v. Pacheco, 48

Sec. 296]

Rights of Enjoyment.

The acquiescence of an adjoining owner in a particular boundary line is, it seems, binding on his successor in interest to the same extent as on himself, he being chargeable with notice of the location of such line by indicia upon the land.74