The principle of estoppel in pais is sometimes applied so as to prevent one who has recognized a certain line as the boundary between his own and other land from thereafter asserting that this is not the correct line, especially when improvements have been made by the other proprietor with reference to such line.77 And the same result has been held to follow misrepresentations as to the boundary line made to an intending- purchaser of land by the owner of the adjoining land.78 In the cases referred to, the fact that the person sought to be estopped was ignorant of or mistaken as to the true line at the time of asserting or assenting to another line seems to have been regarded as not affecting the estoppel; but, by other cases, knowledge that the line indicated or assented to was incorrect is regarded as essential,79 a view which is apparently more in con76. Raymond v. Nash, 57 Conn. 447; Stone v. Clark, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 381; Den d. Haring v. Van Houten, 22 N. J. L. 61.

77. Steidl v. Link, 246 111. 345, 92 N. E. 874; Ross v. Ferree, 95 Iowa, 604, 64 N. W. 683; Major's Heirs v. Rice, 57 Mo. 384; Joyce v. Williams, 26 Mich. 332; Sumner v. Seaton, 47 N. J. Eq. 103, 19 Atl. 884; Trustees of Town of Brook-haven v. Smith, 118 N. Y. 634, 7 L. R. A. 755, 23 N. E. 1002; Gal-braith v. Lunsford, 87 Tenn. 89, 1 L. R. A. 522, 9 S. W. 365.

78. Peterson v. Sohl, 141 Ind. 466, 40 N. E. 910; Willson v. Beck, 160 Iowa, 276, 142 N. W. 78; Ward v. Middleton, - (Ky.) -, 124 S. W. 823; Mowers v. Evers, 117 Mich. 93, 75 N. W. 290; McKinney v. Doane, 155 Mo. 287, 56 S. W. 304; Fitch v. Walsh, 94 Neb. 32, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1136, 142 N. W. 293; Richardson v. Chickering, 41 N. H. 380; Swayze's Ex'r v. Carter, 41 N. J. Eq. 231; Allison v. Kenion, 163 N. C. 582, 79 S. E. 1110; Chadwell v. Chad-well, 93 Tenn. 201, 23 S. W. 973; Timon v. Whitehead, 58 Tex. 290; Halloran v. Whitcomb, 43 Vt. 306; Windsor v. Sarsfield, 66 Wash. 576, 119 Pac. 1112; Weisbrod v. Chicago & N. Ry. Co., 18 Wis. 40, 86 Am. Dec. 743.

79. Cheeney v. Nebraska & C. Stone Co., 41 Fed. 740; Maye v. Yappen, 23 Cal. 306; Mullaney v. Duffy, 145 111. 559, 33 N. E. 750; Marks v. Madsden, 261 111. 51, 103 N. E. 625; Titus v. Morse, 40 sonance with the principles underlying the law of estoppel.

VIII. Fences.