
    [Civ. No. 411.
    Third Appellate District.
    
      April 7, 1908.]
    SAMUEL HILL, Respondent, v. JOSEPH HOEFER et al., Appellants.
    Action to Quiet Title—Laches—Burden of Proof—Reservation— Boundaries—Unstable Finding and Judgment—Prescription— Evidence—Equities.—Held, on the authority of Hill v. Barner, No. 410, supra, this day decided, in reference to the foregoing subject, that the judgment and order denying a new trial in this case should be reversed.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, and from an order denying a new trial. Charles M. Head, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court in the case of Hill v. Barner et al., No. 410, supra.
    
    Sweeney & Tillotson, and Reid & Dozier, for Appellants, Joseph Hoefer et al.
    Wm. Singer, Jr., Guy Shoup, and G. O. Perry, for Central Pacific Railway Company, Appellant.
    Braynard & Kimball, and T. W. H. Shanahan, for Respondent.
   HART, J.

The facts and the law involved in this case are admittedly the same as those involved in Hill v. Barner etc. et al., No. 410, this day decided.

A motion was made to dismiss the appeal in this case, but the same is without merit, and is, therefore, denied.

Upon the authority of Hill v. Barner et al., ante, p. 58, [96 Pac. 111], and for the reasons therein stated, the judgment and order are reversed.

Chipman, P. J., and Burnett, J., concurred.  