Stockton v. Garfrias

This was trespass for entering upon the plaintiff’s land and cutting timber. There was no proof that the plaintiff was in the actual possession of the spot of land alleged to be trespassed on at the time of *316the trespass. The plaintiff had bought the land of the defendant, and by a survey made of the premises, it was ascertained (or is asserted) that the lines of plaintiff’s tract, as given by the deed, did not embrace this land. But the plaintiff attempted to show that a few days before the suit was brought, but after the trespass complained of, the plaintiff and defendant agreed that the…