Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-296-Practical-location.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:00:42+00:00

Document:
Not infrequently reference is made to the "practical location," by the parties to a conveyance, of the boundary or boundaries referred to therein.75 This expression refers to a designation of the line by agreement between the grantee and the grantor, the latter retaining the adjoining land, followed by possession in accordance therewith, or to possession up to a certain line by each of the parties, without any specific agreement. In other words, the expression referred to appears to include both an agreement as to the boundary line and acquiescence in such a line, regarded as an application or interpretation by the parties in interest of the language of the conveyance.
Cal. 395; Bayhouse v. Urquides, 17 Idaho, 28&, 105 Pac. 1066; Darst v. Enlow, 116 111. 475, 6 N. E. 215; Andrews v. Meredith, 131 Iowa, 716. 109 N. W. 287; Knight v. Coleman, 19 N. H. 118, 49 Am. Dec. 147; Jones v. Smith, 64 N. Y. 180; Young v. Hyland, 37 Utah 229, 108 Pac. 1124.
That the erection and maintenance of a fence does not of itself show acquiescence in that fence as marking the boundary line, see Palmer v. Osborne, 115 Iowa, 714, 87 N: W. 712; Dwight v. City of Des Moines, 174 Iowa, 178, 156 N. W 336; Iverscn v. Swann, 169 Mass. 582, 48 N. E. 282; West v. St. Louis, K. C. & N Ry. Co., 59 Mo. 510; Talbot v. Smith, 56 Ore. 117, 107 Pac. 480, 108 Pac. 125; Cottrell v. Pickering, 32 Utah 62, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 404, 88 Pac. 696; Clark v. Dustin, 52 Vt. 588.
74. Long v. Cummingi, 156 Ala. 577, 47 So. 109; Price v. De Reyes, 161 Cal. 484, 119 Pac. 893; Osteen v. Wynn, 131 Ga. 209, 62 S. E. 37; Davis v. Smith, 61 Tex. 18; Tanner v. Stratton, 44 Utah, 253, 139 Pac. 940; Turner v. Creech, 58 Wash. 439, 108 Pac. 1084.
75. Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 54 N. W. 740; Wells v Jackson Iron Mfg. Co., 47 X. H. 235; Jones v. Smith, 64 N. Y. 180; Allison v. Kenion, 163 N. C. 582, 79 S. E. 1110; Albanesius v. Peerless Rubber Mfg. Co , 75 N. J. L. 340, 76 Atl. 1025; Young v. H:land, 37 Utah, 229, 108 Pac. 1124; Da vies v. Wickstrom, 56 Wash. 154, 105 Pac. 454.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.