
    Mary A. Dale, Respondent, v. Peter A. H. Jackson, Appellant.
    
      Supreme Court, Second Department, General Term,
    
    
      February 10, 1890.
    
      Ejectment. Boundaries.—Where the question involved in an action of ejectment is one of boundary and not of title, and the referee locates the line where it has existed since 1839, and in accordance with the acquiescence and occupancy of the owners of both adjacent parcels of land, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on report of referee.
    Action of ejectment to recover a strip of land thirteen and one-half feet wide. Prior to 1839 a division fence stood on the line as claimed by plaintiff. At that time it was removed, but in 1871 monuments, apparently ancient, were on the same line, which was recognized by the then owners as the dividing line. According to this line, defendant’s lot was 184 feet wide ; but defendant claims the strip because the mortgage, through the foreclosure of which he holds title, described the land as 197 feet 6 inches wide.
    
      Garrett Z. Snider, for appellant.
    
      Sawyer & Getty, for respondent.
   Dykman, J.

This is an action of ejectment for the recovery of a long narrow strip of land lying between two lines which are claimed by the parties to be the dividing line between their lands.

The question involved is, therefore, one of boundary and not of title. The trial of the action was before a referee, who reported in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed from the judgment.

After a careful examination we find no merit in the appeal. The boundary line has been established where the referee has located it since the year 1839, and the owners of both these parcels have acquiesced in such location, and the occupancy of the strip of land has always been in conformity and harmony with such location.

There is no doubt about the case and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.  