Wilder

The action was brought to quiet title to an irregular piece of land containing about twenty acres. It is described in the complaint and findings by metes and bounds, the southern boundary of which as “the quarter-section line running easterly and westerly through the center of sections 13 and 14, township 5 north, range 5 east, M. D. M.” The strip in question is represented by the colored portion of the following diagram:

The vital controversy in the case is as to the location -of the southern boundary line of plaintiff's land, and the solution of this question depends upon the location of the center of íÁid sections 13 and 14. It is not disputed that the legal title to the land lying north of a line connecting these centers belongs to plaintiff, and that lying south is the property of defendant. The contention of the latter is, however, that said southern boundary line constitutes the northern boundary instead of the southern of said disputed strip, the distance between them being 234.13 feet at one end, and 222.60’ at the other, as shown on the diagram.

Admittedly, plaintiff’s title is deraigned through two patents from the state of California of swamp-land surveys, numbered…