Cited by

Relying upon Mastroianni v. Wercinski, 158 N.H. 380, 383 (2009), and Rauteriberg v. Munnis, 108 N.H. 20, 23 (1967), the trial court ruled that a boundary may be established by acquiescence and prevail over contrary descriptions in *434 deeds to the extent that the parties recognize the boundary as true for twenty years, and occupy their lots accordingly.

It is well established that “[acquiescence may establish a boundary where the parties for twenty years or more have recognized a certain boundary as being the true one and have occupied their respective lots accordingly.” Rautenberg v. Munnis, 108 N.H. 20, 23 (1967).

Rautenberg v. Munnis, 108 N.H. 20, 23, 226 A.2d 770, 772 (1967); see Richardson v. Chickering, 41 N.H. 380, 385 (1860).

Starvish v. Farley, 115 N.H. 598, 602, 347 A.2d 175, 177 (1975); Rautenberg v. Munnis, 108 N.H. 20, 22, 226 A.2d 770, 772 (1967).

The evidence in disputed boundary cases is seldom all one way.

Since the location on the ground of boundaries described in deeds is for the trier of facts (Rautenberg v. Munnis, 108 N.H. 20, 22, 226 A.2d 770, 772 (1967)) and the description in the taking supports the finding of the referee that the land of the right of way was included, we sustain the referee’s findings.

Leigh v. LaPierre, 113 N.H. 633, 312 A.2d 699 (1973); Sheris v. Morton, 111 N.H. 66, 276 A.2d 813 (1971); Rautenberg v. Munnis, 108 N.H. 20, 22, 226 A.2d 770, 772 (1967); Pike v. Hartford, 102 N.H. 135, 152 A.2d 602 (1959).

The location of the bound was a question of fact for the trial court.

It is true that when quan- • tifies are expressed in precise terms, they may be considered in determining which of two disputed bounds is the correct one.

The master was justified in finding that the “ LH ” rock at the river as contended by defendants was the bound referred to in the deeds for over one hundred years.

In such cases, particularly where the master has had the benefit of a view, we can only reverse for errors of law or if the findings of fact are not supported by the evidence.

The resolution of these conflicts is for the trial court and not for this court (Rautenberg v. Munnis, 108 N.H. 20, 226 A.2d 770 (1967)) and since we cannot say that the evidence favorable to the defendant’s contentions is so overwhelming that no reasonable person could come to a contrary conclusion, the findings of the referee must stand.

Rautenberg v. Munnis, 108 N.H. 20, 226 A.2d 770 (1967); Goodwin v. Johnson, 105 N.H. 294, 199 A.2d 97 (1964).