Eshleman

When the description of a deed calls for a subdivision of a section of surveyed land, the quarter-section corners being lost, and the section exceeding six hundred and forty acres in area, the division lines of the fractions of *234 the section should be determined by division pro rata of the lines of the section as it is found to exist. (Miller v. Topeka Land Co., 44 Kan. 354 ; Powers v. Jackson, 50 Cal. 429 .) Compensation for improvements placed on the land while plaintiff owned it cannot be allowed as offset or in defense to the action. (See Ford v. Holton, 5 Cal. 319 ; Kilburn v. Ritchie, 2 Cal. 145 ; 56 Am. Dec. 326 ; Welch v. Sullivan, 8 Cal. 165 ; Carpentier v. Mitchell, 29 Cal. 330 ; Love v. Shartzer, 31 Cal. 488 ; Hannan v. McNickle, 82 Cal. 127 ; Huse v. Den, 85 Cal. 401 ; Yount v. Howell, 14 Cal. 465 ; Helm v. Wilson, 89 Cal. 593 .)

This is an action to quiet title to a small strip of land containing about 2.88 acres. Plaintiff being the owner of section 17 of a certain township and range, sold to defendant the west one-half of the northwest one-quarter of said section, and the location of defendant’s eastern boundary line thereof is the point in dispute. It is…