446 FEDBBAIi BEPOETEB. �dicate a notorious claim of property in it, and are continuee! for 21 years, with the knowledge of an adverse claimant, with- out interruption, * * such acts are evidence of an ouster of a former owner and an actual adverse possession against bip." �The foregoing citations show that the defendant's posses- sion must be regarded as adverse as to ail the land inside the hedge, and having been continued uninterruptedly under the eye of the plaintifî and bis grantees for more than five years, the right of the plaintifif to maintain this action is barred. �Upon another ground, also, the defendant bas a good de- fenee; that is, acquiescenoe in the location of the division Une on the part of plaintiff for more than five years. Thia defence is entirely distinct from, and independent of, the statute of limitations. The doctrine in regard to it is thus stated by the supreme court of California: "The authorities are abundant to the point that when the owners of adjoining lands bave acquiesced for a considerable time in the location of a division line between their lands, although it may not be the true line, according to the calls of their deeds, they are thereafter precluded from saying it is not the true line." Sneed v. Osborn, 25 Cal. 619. That court inclines to the opinion that the time mentioned must at least equal that fixed by the statute of limitations to bar a right of entry; citing Jackson v. Ogden, 7 John. 238, and numerous other cases. Acquiescenee in an agreed line for more than twenty years is conclusive against a right of recovery. Boyd v. Graves, 4 Wheat. 513. And it is held that acquiescenee for a great number of years is conclusive evidence of an agreement to that line. No express agreement need be shown. Rockwell V. Adams, 1 Cow. 761. A line which parties bave agreed to, either expressly or by acquiescenee, will not be disturbed. McGormick v. Bamum, 10 Wend. 105. See Riley v. Griffin, 16 Ga. 141. Standing by, wbile a party subjected himself to expenses in regard to the land which he would not have done had not the line been located as it was, may perhaps warrant the presumption of a grant within the statute ����
