Perich

The action was in ejectment and for five

hundred dollars’ damages for the unlawful detention of the land, and the judgment was in favor of defendants for costs. The real question in the case concerns the location of the boundary line between the land of plaintiffs and that of de fendants. It was admitted that each of the parties deraigned title from John A. Sutter, the plaintiffs to the “east 35 feet of lot 2 in the lot between N and 0 streets and Fifth and Sixth streets in the city of Sacramento and the defendants to the west one-half of lot No. 3” in said block. It is shown very clearly that there is, and has been for many years, probably forty or more, a fence on the dividing line as claimed by respondents. Their dwelling-house in the rear also extends to this line, and the entire holding of respondents is, and has been for many years, inclosed. It is the contention, however, of appellants that respondents have included in their inclosure a strip about twenty inches in width belonging to the former, and thus the controversy has arisen.

To establish their claim plaintiffs called D. ft. Cate, a civil engineer, who testified that in 1911 he surveyed the lots in question, that it…