Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-505-Mistake-in-locating-boundary.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:11:40+00:00

Document:
This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
88a. Post, Sec. 511, notes 30-33b.
89. Ante, Sec. 501, note 31.
90. Lucas v. Provinen, 130 Cal. 270, 62 Pac. 509; French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439, 21 "Am. Dec. 680; Krause v. Nolte, 217 111. 298, 3 Ann. Cas. 1061, 75 N. E. 362 (semble); Daily v. Boudreau, 231 111. 228, 83 N. E. 218 (sent-ole); Rennert v. Shirk, 163 Ind. 542, 72 N. E. 546; Dowell v. Dillon, 178 Ky. 531, 199 S. W. 6; Jordon v. Riley, 178 Mass. 524, 60 N. E. 7; Greene v. Angle-mire, 77 Mich. 168, 43 N. W. 772; Weeks v. Upton, 99 Minn. 410, 109 N. W. 828; Stevens v.
Velde, 138 Minn. 59, 163 N. W. 796; Crowder v. Neal, 100 Miss. 730, 57 So. 1; Rude v. Marshall, 54 Mont. 27, 166 Pac. 298; Baty v. Elrod, 66 Neb. 735, 92 N. W. 1032, 97 N. W. 343; Zweimer v. Vest, 96 Neb. 399, 147 N. W. 1129; Crary v. Goodman, 22 N. Y. 170; Yetzer v. Thoman, 17 Ohio St. 130, 91 Am. Dec. 122; Parker v. Wolf, 69 Ore. 446, 138 Pac. 463; Miles v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 245 Pa. 94, 91 Atl. 211; Erck v. Church, 87 Tenn. 575, 4 L. R. A. 641, 11 S. W. 794; Williams v. Hewitt, 128 Tenn. 689, 164 S. W. 1198; Burnell v. Mathe fact that, in such case, the possession of the other's land is under mistake, has been regarded as frequently material, and a distinction is asserted to the effect that, if such possession up to the boundary as located is with the intention of claiming title to that extent, even though the boundary be incorrect, the possession is adverse, while, if it is with the intention of claiming title to that extent only if the boundary is correct, the possession is not adverse.91 The decisions of a particular court in this regard are not infrequently lacking in entire consistency, one with another, and occasionally the judicial discussion of the subject is such as to leave us somewhat in the dark as to the exact position of the court on the question.
92. As in Huffman v. White, 90 Ala. 354, 7 So. 816; Couch v. Adams, 111 Ark. 604, 164 S. W. 728; Heath v. Kirkpatrick, 48 Iowa, 78; Zimmerman v. Ginter, 69 Kan. 331, 63 Pac. 657; Patterson v. Hollis, 90 Kan. 655, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 725, 136 Pac. 258; Turner v. Morgan, 158 Ky. 511. 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 106, 165 S. W. 684 (semble) ; Goltermann v. Schiermeyer, 111 Mo. 404, 19 S. W. 484, 20 S. W. 161; Man v. Phillips, - Mo - , 186 S. W. 988; Nichols v. Tallman, Mo., 189 S. W. 1184; Pearson v. Dryden, 28 Or. 350, 43 Pa*'. 166. See ante, Sec. 295.
2 R. P. - 48 attributing greater weight thereto when the mistake is as to the proper location of a boundary than when it is a mistake as to the title to all the land wrongfully possessed. And to introduce the element of mistake, and then limit its significance by an inquiry as to the intention which the possessor may have as to his course of action in case there should be a mistake, an intention which has ordinarily no existence whatsoever, is calculated only to cause confusion in the minds of the jury, without, it is conceived, any compensating advantage.
In case a temporary boundary line is located by agreement between the adjoining owners, with the understanding that they shall occupy with reference thereto until the proper line is ascertained, the possession of one beyond the proper line, in accordance with such temporary location, has been regarded as not adverse to the other.96 His possession in such case is in effect permissive, and involves a recognition of the other's title to the extent of that title.

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. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.