The Supreme Court had to assume that the survey of southern landowners was correct and that an easement granted by the state to northern landowners lay in a location other than that testified to by a northern landowner, which location would place a survey stake in middle of an easement on land owned by the state, where northern landowner who testified to that effect did not have land resurveyed to show southern landowners’ survey was in error, and the landowner testified at trial he did not have copy of state’s survey with him. Absent a conflicting survey or other evidence that the easement was actually in the place described, the Supreme Court had to assume that the survey was correct and that the easement lay elsewhere. Matzke v. Hackbart, 224 Neb. 535, 399 N.W.2d 786 (1987).