Court Opinion

ID: 9567002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:46:41.701422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:49:00.897519
License: Public Domain

KEETON, Justice
(dissenting).
The fact that the plaintiff Paurley saw the fence now claimed by defendants to be the boundary line dividing the land would not in my opinion put the plaintiffs on inquiry as to the agreement, if there were one, between the common grantors and defendants as to what the true boundary line should be. In other words the boundary fence claimed by defendants to be the boundary would not in itself be sufficient to establish knowledge of plaintiffs that an agreement as to the boundary line existed, if it did. The fence alone would not establish the true line dividing conterminous, properties.
In Campbell v. Weisbrod, 73 Idaho 82, 245 P.2d 1052, the boundary line in dispute-was not only uncertain, but it could not be, and was not, determined with certainty.. Hence, this court held that the agreed boundary controlled. Such is not true here.. The true line in dispute in the present situation could be, and was, established.
Hence, I think the judgment should be-affirmed.