BULLITAN V. UNION PACIFIO EAILEOAD 00. 44T �perioà. Aàams y. Rockwell, 16 Wend. 285, 302. Long ac- quiescence in the location of a fence, as a dividing line, estops the parties from controverting the correctness of the location. Columbet v. Pacheco, 48 Cal. 395. �The acquiescence in this case haa been for more than the period prescribed by the statute of limitations of Nevada, and the plaintiff cannot now question the boundary so long agreed to. �The defendant has never claimed title to the land lying between the hedge and the fence. He says that he claimed title to the hedge as upon the true line, but set the fence a little outside of it as a protection to his hedge. �The judgment will have to be in favor of plaintiff for the possession of so much of the land described in the complaint as lies outside of the hedge, and no more. ���Sullivan v. Thb Union Paoifio Eailboad Company. �{OircuH Court, D. Nebraiika. , 1880.) �Damages — NiiGLioEncB.— In the absence of a statute damages cannot be recovered by a father from a railroad company for causing the death of a minor son. �The petition states the following facts, viz. : The plaintiff, a citizen of Omaha, was the father of James Sullivan, who, on the twelfth day of July, 1872, was killed by the negligence of defendant, the Union Pacific Eailroad Company ; that at the time of said killing said James Sullivan was hired by plaintiff to defendant at two dollars per day. Plaintiff sues to recover wages at that rate during the minority of the de- ceased, about four years. �A. J. Poppleton, for defendant, on hearing on demurrer, claimed that there could be no recovery, there being no stat- ute providing for such a case. �J. I. Redick, for plaintiff, argued that the action being grounded in contract no statute was necessary. ����
