
    The City of St. Louis, Appellant, v. Meyer.
    1. Ejectment: boundaries : practice. What are the boundaries of land conveyed by deed is a question of law ; where the boundaries are is a question of fact.
    2. -: practice. It is error to instruct a jury to disregard surveys, properly in evidence, in determining the position of boundary lines mentioned in the deed in suit.
    8. -: boundaries. That partitiouers place certain stones that ■ mark boundary lines upon land adjoining their own, does not have the effect of changing the boundary lines,
    4. -: evidence. Under a claim that a certain street marks a boundary line, it is error to admit in evidence proceedings to open such street, the judgment in which had been, vacated for want of jurisdiction.
    5. - : practice. The circuit court may entertain a motion to vacate a judgment in a street opening proceeding, filed more than four years after the judgment, and may sustain the motion at the subsequent term.
    6.: evidence : deed. A deed, made by one of the parties twelve years before the deed in suit was made, is incompetent to show that the former deed was made under the survey adopted in the latter deed. 
    
    
      Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
    
    Affirmed.
    
      Lever ett Bell and Frank K. Rya/n for appellant.
    
      E. C. Tittman and Fred. Wislizenus for respondent.
    
      
       These syllabi are taken from 13 Mo. App. 367.
    
   Norton, J.

This case is before ns on plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment of the St. Louis court of appeals reversing a judgment rendered for plaintiff, )¡j. the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, and remanding the cause for re-trial. The errors committed by the circuit court in the trial of the cause, and for which'the judgment was reversed, are specifically designated in the opinion of the court of appeals, reported in' 13 Missouri Appeal Reports, page 367,. and for the reasons therein given we are of the opinion that the judgment of the circuit court was properly reversed by the court of appeals, and we hereby affirm its judgment reversing that ■of the circuit court and remanding the cause, dispensing with an elaborate discussion, in this opinion, of the questions raised by the record, inasmuch as such discussion would lead to the same conclusion, based upon the same reasoning as that adopted in the opinion of .said court.

All concur.  