Where the true boundary line between adjoining owners is uncertain and unknown to them, and may be ascertained only at more or less trouble and expense, an executed agreement to accept and abide by a certain line as such boundary is binding upon the parties and subsequent purchasers having notice thereof, although the boundary agreed upon may not be the true line. Lynch v. Egan, 67 Neb. 541, 93 N.W. 775 (1903); Egan v. Light, 4 Neb. Unof. 127, 93 N.W. 859 (1903). See also Neb. Rev. Statutes §23-1911.
Parties built a fence between their two farms, but evidence was conflicting concerning agreement that the fence was to be the boundary. Whether there was agreement is a question of fact to be submitted to a jury. Clark v. Thornburg, 66 Neb. 717, 92 N.W. 1056 (1902).
Where the true boundary line between adjoining owners of real property can be ascertained, the parties by mistake have agreed upon an erroneous line as such boundary, believing it to be the true line, they will not be precluded by such agreement from claiming the true line when discovered, unless the statute of limitations has run or equitable reasons exist for establishing the erroneous line as the true line. Hausner v. Melia, 212 Neb. 764, 326 N.W.2d 31 (1982); Kimes v. Libby, 87 Neb. 113, 126 N.W. 869 (1910); Trussell v. Lewis, 13 Neb. 415, 14 N.W. 155 (1910); Goozee v. Grant, 81 Neb. 597, 116 N.W. 508 (1908).
Joint owners of a tract of land caused a line to be run dividing it, as they supposed, in half, and planted a hedge on the line, up to which either party cultivated. Both owners afterwards sold to parties who knew and purchased with reference to the division line. It was afterwards discovered that the line did not equally divide the property. The court held that the parties were bound by the line so established by the grantors. Trussell v. Lewis, 13 Neb. 415, 14 N.W. 155 (1910); Lynch v. Egan, 67 Neb. 541, 93 N.W. 775 (1903).