Opinion ID: 1169955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Location of Fence

Text: There was evidence tending to show that a fence along the southern boundary of the land sold was not on a true course; and that the fence cut off approximately 0.6 acres of land covered by the contract. Kipp claims he should be allowed to deduct from the purchase price for this 0.6 acres, since the adjoining owner might claim it by adverse possession. The court took the position, however, that the adjoining owner was not a party; that no claim of adverse possession was being made; and that the question of whether the adjoining owner could or could not claim title to the 0.6 acres by adverse possession was not before the court. The court was obviously correct in that position. We find nothing in the judgment of the district court which was inequitable or prejudicial to appellant. Such judgment should therefore be allowed to stand. Affirmed.