Adverse Possession—Mere Occupancy of Land—Payment of Taxes. Mere occupancy of land, not under a claim of title, is insufficient to establish title by adverse possession, although the statute at the time of the occupancy does not require the payment of taxes to vest such title.

Id.—Evidence of Advepse Holding—Burden of Proof.—The burden of proof is upon the person in possession and claiming against the holder of the legal title, to show that his occupancy is hostile and not subordinate to the legal title; he must prove all the essential elements of adverse possession.

Id.—Open Possession not Necessarily Adverse.—Possession may be open and notorious, and still not adverse.

Id.—Claim op Title—Beliep as to Boundaries.—The belief of a landowner that his lot extends to the limits of his inelosure is not equivalent to a claim of title or right, and is therefore not sufficient to sustain an adverse possession.

Id.—Occupancy op Land—Claim op Right—Code Sections.—The “occupancy” referred to in section 1007 of the Civil Code must be construed in connection with the corresponding provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to overcome the legal title the occupancy must be under a claim of right, or adverse, as that term is used in the law.

Id.—Evidence Against Adverse Holding—Assessment op Taxes.— The fact that one in possession of land does not have it assessed to himself is strongly persuasive that he does not claim to be the owner.

Id.—Boundaries—Mistake—Estoppel to Claim True Line.—Where there is an acquiescence in a wrong boundary when the true boundary may be ascertained from the muniments of title, it is treated as a mistake, and estoppel to claim the true line does not arise.

Id.—Acquiescence in Boundary—Absence op Dispute or Uncertainty.—Where a boundary fence is built on what the parties suppose to be the true line, and there is no dispute, and it is not known that there is any uncertainty, the establishment of a boundary by implied consent and acquiescence does not follow therefrom.

Id.—Action to Recover Real Property—Improvements—Findings.— In this action for the recovery of real property it was proper for the court to find the facts as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint, thereby not taking cognizance of improvements made thereafter by the defendant.

Id.—Findings—When Immaterial.-—Findings attacked by the appellant are immaterial where they could not have altered the judgment if they had been in his favor.

Id.—Failure op Court to Find on Some Averments.—A contention by the appellant that the trial court failed to find upon certain averments of the answer does not demand specific consideration on appeal if certain findings of the court, which are supported by the evidence, control and uphold the judgment.

Id.—Action to Recover Real Property—Improvements—Evidence.— In an action for the recovery of land, where the court is justified in concluding that at the time the defendant made improvements the plaintiff believed they were not located upon his land, and that the defendant knew, or had ready means of knowing, that they were located upon the plaintiff’s land, evidence that the plaintiff' permitted the improvements without protest may properly be excluded.