One purchasing from a purchaser at an administrator's sale collusively and fraudulently made, acquires a good title where he had no notice of any irregularity in the administrator's sale or any information sufficient to put him on inquiry. AdlerGoldman Commission Co. v. Clemons, 64 Ark. 197 (41 S. W. Rep. 417). One having notice of a license affecting land, who purchases from one who had no notice of it, takes the land free from the license. Buck v. Foster, 147 Ind. 530 (46 N. E. Rep. 920; 62 Am. St. Rev. 427).

The fact that one has knowledge that his vendor has purchased real estate at a trustee's sale and is selling it at a good profit, does not charge the vendee with notice of a conspiracy between the trustee and her vendor to defraud the estate, the price paid to the trustee not being so inadequate as, in itself, to indicate fraud. Martin & Vann, JJ., dissenting. Anderson v. Blood, 152 N. Y. 285 (46 N. E. Rep. 493). Particular facts held sufficient to put one on inquiry. Truss v. Miller, 116 Ala. 494 (22 So. Rep. 863). Particular conveyance held sufficient to charge a purchaser with notice of the fraudulent character of a prior grantor's conveyance. Arnold v. Hoschildt, 69 Minn. 101 (71 N. W. Rep. 829). Particular facts held insufficient to charge a subsequent grantee with knowledge of a vendor's lien reserved by parol. Yancey v. Blakemore, 95 Va. 263 (28 S. E. Rep. 336).

BOUNDARIES.

EPITOME OF CASES.

Sec. 95. Agreements fixing.

Lines between adjoining owners may be established by their agreement and acts in reference thereto, althought they have not continued for the prescriptive period. St. Bede College v. Weber, 168 Ill. 324 (48 N. E. Rep. 165). The existence of a disputed boundary is sufficient to give validity to a parol agreement fixing the dividing line between adjoining owners without there being an actual overlapping of their boundaries shown by the paper

titles of the claimants.

Gayheart v. Cornett, Ky. (42 S. W. Rep. 730). Where adjoining owners who are ignorant as to the location of the true boundary line between them, fix and agree upon a permanent boundary line in accordance with which agreement possession is taken, such agreement is binding upon the parties to it and all persons claiming through or under them. Ernstring v. Gleason, 137 Mo. 594 (39 S. W. Rep. 70); Elmore v. Davis, 48 S. C. 388 (26 S. E. Rep. 680).

Sec. 96. Establishing boundaries by erection of fences and buildings. In determining the boundary of a city lot upon an alley, a city may be bound by the location and maintenance of fences and acquiscence therein for more than twenty-five years. City of Decatur v. Niedermeyer, 168 Ill. 68 (48 N. E. Rep. 72). Acquiescence in the location of a division fence as a boundary line for more than thirty years will establish it as a true line, although such location does not agree with the survey referred to in the deeds under which the adjoining owners hold. Palmer v. Dosch, 148 Ind. 10 (47 N. E. Rep. 176). A landowner, ignorant of his true boundary, does not, by merely building a fence, estop himself from setting it over on the true line, unless the adjoining owner has acquired title to the strip left next to his lot by adverse possession. Beecher v. Farris, 112 Mich. 584 (70 N. W. Rep. 1106). Building a fence by one adjoining owner within the true boundary upon what he supposes to be the true line, there being no agreement that the fence is to constitute the boundary, does not establish it as the boundary, although the other adjoining owner makes some slight improvements on the outlying strip, in reliance upon the fence being the boundary. Iverson v. Swan, 169 Mass. 582 (48 N. E. Rep. 282). Where the owner of a city lot, who makes a particular location of its boundaries, by erecting a building covering the entire width of the lot, subsequently makes a mortgage upon the premises, which contains a description by metes and bounds, embracing all the lot except a strip about two inches wide on each side, one acquiring title under the mortgage takes the entire lot as covered by the building, as against the mortgagor and his heirs. Katz v. Kaiser, 154 N. Y. 294

(48 N. E. Rep. 532). Under Me. Rev. Stat. ch. 18, § 95, when the bounds of a street cannot be made certain by either records or monuments, a fence which has existed in the same place for more than forty years, is to be deemed the true bounds of the street. Bradford v. Hume, 90 Me. 233 (38 Atl. Rep. 143).

Sec. 97. Establishing boundaries by acquiescence and estoppel. A city may acquiesce in the boundary of a street so as to be estopped to deny it. City of Joliet v. Werner, 166 Ill. 34 (46 N. E. Rep. 780). The fact that a boundary line erroneously established by a survey has been acquiesced in for many years, does not estop one injuriously affected by the error, from asserting the true line, as against one who had equal advantage with him. Ward v. Dean, 69 Minn. 466 (72 N. W. Rep. 710). The question as to whether a certain boundary line has been established by the acquiescence of adjoining owners, is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. Lourance v. Goodwin, 170 Ill. 390 (48 N. E. Rep. 903). A landowner is not estopped to assert the true line between his land and an adjoining lot by his acquiescence in encroachments made by the other proprietor, without reference to any agreement to settle the boundary line of the true location of which they were both ignorant. Jordanv. Ferree, 101 Ia. 440 (70 N. W. Rep. 611). Where the evidence shows the location of a boundary line by adjoining owners with the obvious intention of making it the true line, which is acquiesced in for more than thirty years, it becomes binding upon them and their privies. Welton v. Poynter, 96 Wis. 346 (71 N. W. Rep. 597). Where the boundaries of land conveyed are fixed by a definite description in the deed, they cannot be extended by a previous parol understanding between the parties as to where the division line would be, which is acquiesced in by them to the extent of a temporary use, but not followed by the erection of any distinctive land marks. De Long v. Baldwin, 111 Mich. 466 (69 N. W. Rep. 831). For application of the principles of estoppel to particular boundary case, see Phinney v. Campbell, 16 Wash. 203 (47 Pac. Rep. 502).

Sec. 98. Proceedings to establish boundaries. As to the admissibility of parol evidence to locate boundaries, see Broaddus v. Eubanks, Ky. (38 S. W. Rep. 134). It is competent to show by parol testimony that by mistake of surveyor or draftsman, the calls for course and distance incorporated in a deed or grant, are different from those established by previous or contemporary running by the parties or their agents. Higdon v. Rice, 119 N. C. 623 (26 S. E. Rep. 256). Where the evidence is conflicting, the finding of a trial court as to the location of the division line will not be disturbed.

Ponet v. Wills, Cal. (48 Pac. Rep. 483). Where the issues in an action involve only the establishment of a corner and boundary line common to four sections, to locate which surveyors were commissioned who reported the location of such corner and lines and also the quarter section corners, it is held that a judgment confirming the report and establishing the lines and corners in dispute, does not affect a quarter section corner previously established by the general government and recognized by all the parties interested. Muecke v. Barrett, 104 Ia. 413 (73 N. W. Rep. 880). Me. Rev. Stat., ch. 3, § 67, construed and applied-proceedings to establish boundaries between adjoining towns-conclusiveness as to private owners. Whitcomb v. Dutten, 89 Me. 212 (36 Atl. Rep. 67). N. C. Laws 1893, ch. 22, construed and applied-action to establish boundaries-evidence-constructive possession. Basnight v. Meekins, 27 S. E. Rep. 992).

Sec. 99. Rules for determining boundaries-Locating lost corners. In a contest between two grantees of a common grantor, the junior grantee will not be allowed to claim beyond an agreed boundary line of which he had notice when he purchased. Harding v. Wright, 138 Mo. 11 (39 S. W. Rep. 456). Where a grant is located by contemporaneously marked lines, they govern and control its boundary and fix the location so as to supercede other descriptions. Deaver v. Jones, 119 N. C. 598 (26 S. E. Rep. 156). As a general rule, all disputes as to the boundaries of land are governed by the United States surveys unless there is some statute of the state to the contrary; and the United States statutes makes the field notes and plats of the original sur

veyor the primary and controling evidence of boundary. Taylor v. Fomby, 116 Ala. 621 (22 So. Rep. 910). Where a fence and piling, erected below high water mark by the owner of one of them, has been acquiesced in and recognized in conveyances to its extent, as a part of the dividing line between two wharf lots on a concave shore, so much of the boundary will be regarded as established, and the remainder of the boundary will be fixed by drawing a straight line from the point to which it is established perpendicular to a straight line drawn across the mouth of the bend on which the lots are situated. Lowndes v. Wicks, 69 Conn. 15 (36 Atl. Rep. 1072). Where a statute (N. C. Private Acts 1883, ch. 12, § 2) provides that the corporate limits of a town shall be "14 of a mile east, west, north and south from the center of the town, which center is the site of a brick building formerly known as the court house; and shall run with the four cardinal points of the compass," it is held that the boundary is a square whose sides run east and west and north and south, the center of each line being one-fourth mile from the fixed center of the town. State v. Raney, 121 N. C. 612 (28 S. E. Rep. 366). The unvarying rule to be followed in establishing a lost corner is to start at the nearest known point on one side of the lost corner, on the line on which it was originally established; to then measure to the nearest known corner on the other side, on the same line; then, if the length of the line is in excess of that called for by the original survey, to divide it between the tracts connecting such two known points, in proportion to the length of the boundaries of such tracts on such line, as given in such survey. Lewis v. Prien, 98 Wis. 87 (73 N. W. Rep. 654). See opinion for determination of particular questions of evidence.

Sec. 100. Streams and waters as boundaries. A conveyance of land to a water course and thence with the same, passes title to the thread of the stream, unless otherwise provided or indicated. Runion v. Alley, Ky. (39 S. W. Rep. 849). Where a grantor holds the legal title to the bed of a non-navigable stream, his grant of lands extending to such stream passes title to the thread of the stream. Hanlon v. Hobson, 24 Colo. 284 (51 Pac. Rep. 433). See opinion for