See also Palmer v. Dosch, 148 Ind. 10, 47 N.E. 176 (1897); Dyer v. Eldridge, 136 Ind. 654, 36 N.E. 522 (1893); Richwine v. Presbyterian Church, 135 Ind. 80, 34 N.E. 737 (1893); Wingler v. Simpson, 93 Ind. 201, 1884 WL 10332 (1884). Thirty years later, we reiterated the Adams rule in Bubacz v. Kirk, 91 Ind.App. 479, 171 N.E. 492 (1930) where, presented with a dispute over real estate, we delved into the historical ownership of the land. Originally, in 1902, Sheerer was the owner of lots 23 and 24, with Johnson owning the adjoining lot 25.

This line agreement is not only binding on those parties who agree but also their successors in interest so long as there was no fraud present in the making of the agreement. Myers et ux. v. McGowen et ux. (1965), 138 Ind. App. 163, 212 N.E.2d 411; Bubacz v. Kirk (1930), 91 Ind. App. 479, 171 N.E. 492; Furst v. Satterfield (1909), 44 Ind. App. 613, 89 N.E. 906. The line agreement need not be express and may be inferred from the parties' actions, but there must be evidence of some agreement as to the boundary line.

As a general rule, it is affirmed by the authorities that where owners of adjoining premises establish by agreement a boundary of or a dividing line between their respective lands and take and hold possession of their respective tracts and improve the same in accordance with such division, each party in the absence of fraud will thereafter be estopped from asserting that the line agreed upon and established is not the true boundary line, although the period of time which has elapsed since such line was established and possession taken is less than the statutory period of limitation." Tate v. Foshee (1889), 117 Ind. 322, 20 N.E. 241; Pitcher v. Dove (1885), 99 Ind. 175; Meyer v. Johnson (1860), 15 Ind. 261; Stalcup v. Lingle (1921), 76 Ind. App. 242, 131 N.E. 852; Furst v. Satterfield (1909), 44 Ind. App. 613, 89 N.E. 906; Kinsey et al. v. Satterthwaite (1882), 88 Ind. 342; Bubacz v. Kirk et al. (1929), 91 Ind. App. 479; Welborn v. Kimmerling (1910), 46 Ind. App. 98, 102, 91 N.E. 982; Seaver v. Vonderahe (1920), 74 Ind. App. 631, 635, 127 N.E. 206. It is a well recognized principle of law that the courts favor the settlement of disputes by mutual agreement and where, as in this case, the parties did not know where the true line 1, 2. was between the parties, and where they agree upon a line and have a survey made and stakes set, and this is then followed by an exchange of quit claim deeds, releasing to each other rights in real estate, and one of the parties relying upon the rights granted to him by these quit claim deeds, makes valuable and permanent improvements on that part of the land in question and within the bounds set by the deeds and survey, the parties are estopped from asserting any rights to the real estate in derogation of the deeds made and the line established thereby.