#### M. HANSTEIN v. T. M. FERRELL, Appellant.

(Filed 13 October, 1909.)

In this case the controversy being over an issue of fact, no error appearing, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed.

Appeal from W. R. Allen, J., April Term, 1909, of SamtpsoN.

These issues were submitted, by consent:

1. “Where is the dividing line between plaintiff .and defendant ?” Answer: “The true line between plaintiff and defendant is twelve inches on the side next to defendant from the southeast wall of plaintiff, above the ground, along.the whole course of the wall.”

2. “Is the plaintiff the-owner of the lands in controversy?” Answer: “Yes.”

*1513. “If so, are defendants in wrongful possession thereof ?” Answer: “Yes.”

4. “What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover?” Answer: “No.”

From the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.

F. B. Cooper and Faison & Wright for plaintiff.

'George E. Butler and J. B. Kerr for defendant.

Pee Curiam:

This cause was before this Court at a former term and a new trial was directed. Upon this second trial we are of opinion, upon examination of the record, that no error has been committed. Under the form of the first issue the controversy is one of fact, and has been determined by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. We find no reversible error, and the judgment is

Affirmed.