440 FEDERAL REPORTER. �The defendant also objected that the plaintiff's witnesses were permitted to testify that Craig, since the fire, had said that he knew how the house was occupied, and was satisfied with that occupancy, and considered it safer thau a family. But, as he does not notice the objection in his brief, it may be that he does not, after reflection, rely much upon it, How- ever that may be, the evidence was competent upon eith«r of of two grounds — First, as tending to show a substantial com- pliance with the contract by the plaintiff; and, second, a waiver by defendant of a more strict compliance. �Judgment on the verdict. ���Bbown V. Leetb. [Circuit Court, D. Nevada. March 15, 1880.) �Adtbbsb Possession — Division Linb. — Where one claiming title by vir- tue of a deed, describing the land according to the United States sur- vey, took possession, marked the dividing line, and occupied thereto exclusively, claiming title as to the true boundary, hdd, that, although Buch line was not the true one called for in the deed, the possession was adverse, and, when continued long enough, a bar. �AoQUiESOENCB — Division Line. — Acquiescence in a dividing line for a period equal to that flxed by the statute of limitations for gaining title by adverse possession, binds the party acquiescing to that Une. �William Wehster, for plaintiff. �Lewis e Deal, for defendants. �HiLLYER, D. J. This is an action of ejectment for the pos-' session of a narrow strip of land in the S. W. ^ of section 1, township 19. �Both parties derive title from the United States; and the controversy bas reference to the true Unes dividing the quar- ter section into quarters, in one of its aspects, and in another to the character of the defendant's occupation of the promi- ses in dispute. �The defendant claims the disputed territory by virtue of his deed for the S. E. J of said 8. W. J, and the plaintiff, by virtue of his deeds, for the other three-quarters thereof. ����
