
    JOHN KAHLOW v. HENRY MALZ.
    
    November 25, 1921.
    No. 22,563.
    Boundary — conflicting evidence.
    The finding of the trial court, upon conflicting evidence, sustained on appeal. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for Le Sueur county to recover possession of a strip of land and $100. The answer set up the statute of limitations. The case was tried before Tifft, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      F. G. & II. A. Irwin, for appellant.
    
      Thomas Hessian, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 185 N. W. 299.
    
   Per Curiam.

Action to determine the ownership of a strip of land 12 feet wide extending along the boundary line between the farms of the respective parties-; one in effect to determine the boundary line. The cause was tried before the court without a jury and the court found the disputed strip belonged to defendant and was a part and parcel of his land. The only question presented on the appeal, one from an order denying a new trial, is whether the findings are sustained by the evidence. Our examination of the record leads to an affirmative answer. The evidence is conflicting, presenting an issue of fact for the trial court. We discover no sufficient reasons for interference.

Order affirmed.  