
    Railing v. Boch, Appellant.
    
      Ejectment — Issue of fact — Case for jury.
    
    In an action of ejectment to determine the title to a certain strip of land, the case is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff will be affirmed, where the issue is one of fact as to whether or not a boundary fence had been moved a certain distance.
    Argued April 28, 1925.
    Appeal No. 62, April T., 1925, by defendant from judgment of C. P. Westmoreland County, August T., 1923, No. 718, in the case of John Railing v. Leo J. Boch.
    Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Ejectment to determine title to a tract of land situate in North Huntingdon Township. Before Copeland, P. J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the 'Superior Court.
    Verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned, among others, was refusal of defendant’s motion non obstante veredicto.
    
      Carroll Caruthers, for appellant.
    
      John B. Keister, for appellee.
    
      October 6, 1925:
   ¡Pee Oueiam,

This is an appeal from, a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiff in an action of ejectment for a strip of land 131 feet long, two feet wide at one end and a foot and a half at the other. The trial narrowed the issue to the determination of whether the boundary fence between the land of plaintiff and defendant was moved the width of the strip in 1918; on that subject there was evidence of eye witnesses as well as evidence of surveyors. By the verdict, the jury settled the dispute in accord with plaintiff’s contention. Several assignments of error go to the refusal to direct a verdict for defendant or to enter judgment n. o. v.; as there was a dispute of fact, those assignments are overruled. Several extracts from the charge are also assigned for error; considered in their relation to the rest of the charge, no error appears.

The judgment is affirmed.  