Higgins

C. — Action of ejectment for a narrow strip of land containing about two and two thirds acres.

The parties are owners of adjoining lands. The division line between them is one of the lines surveyed *220 by the United States government dividing a section into quarters. Their disagreement as to the true location of this division line was the only issue tried.

The judgment was for plaintiff, from which, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

The onl}’r point made by the appellant is, that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a nonsuit.

A part of the testimony for the plaintiff was that of C. E. Uren, as follows: —

There can be no question that the testimony of Uren tended to prove plaintiff’s case, and therefore that the motion for nonsuit was properly denied.

If the testimony of Uren was deficient by reason of bis having been guided by an uncertified copy of the field-notes, the deficiency was supplied by defendant, who introduced a properly certified copy of the original field-notes, which corresponded with those used by Uren, and thereby removed or waived that alleged ground of nonsuit. (Smith v. Compton, 6 Cal. 26 ; Perkins…