
    Marlborough P. Faught versus Isaac H. Holway.
    A conveyed to B a portion of a lot of land of a certain width, and extending so far in length “ as will make precisely twenty acres j ” and immediately after-wards A and B, by mutual agreement and survey, marked the lines and corners of the granted premises by spotted trees and stakes. The next year, A conveyed to C the remainder of the lot, more or less, bounding it on the east “by the west line of B’s land.” B and C occupied their several parcels according to the line marked by A and B, for about twenty-five years. In the mean time, B, by the decision of a lawsuit between him and a third party,' had his lot widened on one side four rods, and in consequence relinquished two rods on the other side. C, without any suit, conformed his lines to B’s new ones. But the division line between B and C, and their occupation of their respective parcels, continued as before. In an action brought by C’s grantee to recover of B’s grantee all of the original lot except twenty acres, it was /Wd,'that the parties intended, in the conveyance from A to C, to bound the land conveyed by the well known marked line then existing, and not by an imaginary west line of B’s land to include therein “ precisely twenty acres.”
    
      After an acquiescence by all the parties in a line so established, for a length of time sufficient to give a title by disseizin, it will not be disturbed, although the occupation has not been such as, aside from the marking of the line, would amount to a continuous disseizin for the whole time.
    This was an action of trespass, quare clausum fregit. The defendant pleaded title to the locus in quo. The facts were reported from Nisi Prius, by Rice, J. The testimony-was voluminous, but the facts appeared to be substantially as follows: —
    September 24, 1832, Shubael Baker and another conveyed to Arza Hayward by deed, the west end of the north part of lot No. 39, in Sidney, being one half of. the width of the lot, "and continuing, from the west side, one half the width of the lot, so far as will make precisely twenty acres.” Immediately afterwards, according to a previous agreement, Baker and Hayward went on to the land with surveyors, run out the lines of the lot conveyed by Baker’s deed, and marked the lines and comers by spotted trees and stakes. The defendant, through intervening conveyances, became the owner of this lot of land, deriving his title from Hayward.
    September 12, 1833, Baker and another conveyed the remaining part of the north half of lot No. 39 to James Shaw, describing it as ten or twelve acres, more or less, bounded on the east by " the west line of said Hayward’s land.” The plaintiff claims title from Shaw, through several mesne conveyances.
    There was evidence tending to show, that, from the time the line between Baker and Hayward was marked by them, they and the subsequent owners occupied their respective lots in accordance with the marked lines, each party cutting trees, from time to time, on his own side of the line, and, without dispute or counter claim, until about the year 1857.
    In 1833, or 1834, Hayward had a lawsuit with Bacon, the owner of the next lot on the north, as to where the true north line of Hayward’s land, bought of Baker, was, and it resulted in establishing Hayward’s north line four or five rods north of where it was supposed to be when he bought of Baker. After this, Hayward removed his south line two rods farther north. The owner of the Shaw lot removed his north and south lines to correspond with Hayward’s, as established by the result of the suit. This made Hayward’s land forty and one half rods from north to south, instead of thirty-eight as was supposed when he bought. There was evidence that the west line of Hayward’s lot was not changed, after' the change of the south and north lines, but that that and the Shaw lot were still occupied as before.
    The plaintiff became the owner of the Shaw lot in Dec., 1857, and the defendant of the Hayward lot about the same time.
    The alleged trespass consisted in cutting trees on a strip •of land six rods wide, lying east of the west line of Hayward’s land, as marked and spotted in 1832.
    The case was withdrawn from the jury, and the evidence reported for the full Court to draw such inference's as a jury might, and render such judgment as law and justice should require.
    
      Vose & kb.se, for the plaintiff,
    argued that the deed from Baker to Hayward, and subsequent deeds of the same land, were plain and easy to be understood; that those deeds obviously conveyed twenty acres, and no more; and that the ■record of those deeds held out to the plaintiff that no more land had passed to- the defendant or his grantors than described therein. Of what use are public registries, if not ■to give trae information as to the ownership of land, and if, when the description is plain, and the land may be readily found, a purchaser is obliged to look elsewhere for a description less definite, or for some line traced or monument erected, perhaps by mistake, and which can only be proved by parol ?
    The evidence introduced by the defendant to prove a location different from that contained in the deed, and which would give the grantee more land than was conveyed to him, is inadmissible. The rule that parol proof cannot be admitted to controvert, vary or explain a written instrument under seal, is as old as the law itself. The cases where a location upon the land after the execution of the deed is permitted to be proved, are limited to that class where the construction of the deed itself might otherwise be doubtful. 3 Starkie on Ev., 995, 1002, 1026 ; 7 Term Rep., 138.
    But, if this evidence is admissible, it fails to establish the defence. The deed under which the defendant claims is clear and explicit in its terms, and all the boundaries therein named are precisely defined, and proved to be well established; it conveys an exact quantity of land, precisely twenty acres, and there is no difficulty in making the ad-measurement. It is proved that the location contended for by the defendant, and on which his defence rests, was made under a mistake of four rods as to the true north line of lot 39, they assuming it to be four or five rods south of where it is now established; that Hayward discovered his mistake the year after his purchase, and then and ever since repudiated the north line located by him and Baker, and removed his line four rods further north. By thus widening his whole lot, Ms west line would fall some rods further east than he had located it, and yet give him his full quantity of land as conveyed to him. So that the defendant, while he claims to correct a mistake in his north line, refuses to correct the mistake in his west line, although he would still have all the land intended to be conveyed by the original deed to Hayward. There is neither law nor equity in such a defence. An erroneous location is not binding. Prop. Ken. Purchase v. Tiffany, 1 Greenl., 225.
    The evidence adduced fails to show a continued disseizin for twenty years. The occasional cutting of a tree does not amount to a disseizin, if the evidence were otherwise sufficient. 18 Pick., 449.
    
      Bradbury, for the defendant.
    The seller of land may agree upon a boundary between what he conveys and his remaining land, and when he and the purchaser have, by mutual consent, set up monuments along the line agreed upon, and their possession and claim is in accordance therewith for a reasonable time, such line will not be disturbed, notwithstanding it may give to the grantee more or less land than is named in the deed. Finery v. Fowler, 38 Maine, 99 ,• Moody v. Nichols, 16 Maine, 23 ; Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick., 261.
    Our original surveys are not, as in the great west, made with scientific accuracy. The shape of lots is often irregular, and the quantity of land loosely estimated. Accurate admeasurements, if allowed to prevail, would disturb nine-tenths of the original lines established by the parties, and open a fruitful source of litigation. Parties who have, thus marked out boundaries are estopped from repudiating their own acts, precisely as.one is estopped by acquiescence in the possession of the other party. Nor is it necessary that such acquiescence continue for twenty, or even ten years.
    It is said that there was a mistake in regard to the north line of lot 39, and therefore the principle of Fmery v. Fowler does not apply to the defendant’s west line. The plaintiff had nothing to do with the suit by which the defendant’s lot was widened on the north. He was in no way bound by it, nor were those under whom he claims. How, then, can he be placed in a better or worse condition as to the west line, by the result of the suit affecting only the north line ?
    The proof is positive that the defendant’s west line was not changed when his north line was varied, nor subsequently.
    The plaintiff has no title to the land in dispute. Shaw, his original grantor, purchased of Baker only up to, and was bounded on the east by " the west line of land sold to Hayward.” That west line was established and marked before Shaw purchased. There was no other west line in existence. The marked line became a monument. Moody v. Nichols, 16 Maine, 23.
    The land in question has been in the uninterrupted possession of the defendant and his grantors for twenty-seven years, and their occupancy has been such as is described by Eov. Stat., c. 104, § 58, and previous statutes. Tilton v. Hunter, 24 Maine, 39.
   The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Davis, J.

This is an action of trespass qu. cl., involving the title to real estate. Both parties claim, through mesne conveyances, under Shubael Baker and wife.

The defendant derived his title from Hayward, to whom Baker and wife convoyed, Sept. 24, 1832. The deed described a piece of land from lot number 39, one half the width of said lot, on north side, " and, continuing,’from the west side, one half the width of said lot, so far as will make precisely twenty acres.” Immediately after the deed was given, Baker and Hayward, in pursuance of a previous agreement, went upon the lot with surveyors, and had the premises conveyed run out, and the lines and corners fixed by spotted trees and stakes.

The plaintiff claims through James Shaw, to whom Baker and wife deeded Sept. 12, 1833. The deed to bim described ten or twelve acres, more or less, from the same lot, number 39, being the remainder of the north half of said lot, bounded on the east by "the west line of said Hayward’s land.”

At the time this deed was given, the west line of Hayward’s land had been run.out, and marked; and Shaw and Hayward recognized that as the true line, each cutting wood up to it on his side of it. And, though there was no fence upon the line, and no occupation except by cutting wood, the owners upon both sides continued to acquiesce in the line originally established until 1857.

In 1833, or 1834, Hayward had a suit with Bacon, who owned lot number 40, on the north, in regard to the division line between them. That resulted in changing the north line of lot 39, and locating it four rods further north. This increased the width of the lot, in consequence of which Hayward had more than half the width of it. But Hayward voluntarily relinquished two rods on the south side of his premises to the owner of the south half of the lot. He still had more than twenty acres left, as his lot was two rods wider than before. But Shaw, who then owned the other part of the north half of the lot, was no party to the controversy with Bacon, and toot no part in the matter, except, as a result of it, to give up two rods in width on the south side, and receive four rods in width on the north side of his land. The division line between him and Hayward was not changed. The occupation continued as before, by the parties and their grantees, until 1857.

The case at bar is in all respects within the principles, established by the case of Moody v. Nichols, 16 Maine, 23.

The parties agreed upon 'and mai’ked out a line of boundary immediately after the defendant’s deed was given, and possession was given in accordance with it. The "west line” of it, by which the land deeded to Shaw in 1833, was bounded, was an established, visible monument, well known to the parties. Shaw himself assisted in fixing and marking it, when Hayward’s land was run out in 1832. It is clear that in the deed to Shaw, the parties intended, not an imaginary west line of Hayward’s land, but the well known marked line as then existing.

And, after an acquiescence by all the parties in a line so established for a length of time sufficient to give a title by disseizin, it will not be disturbed,though it does not appear that the occupation has been such as, aside from the marking of the line, would amount to a continuous disseizin for that length of time. Plaintiff nonsuit.

Tenney, C. J., Rice, May, Goodenow, and Kent, JJ., concurred.  