"In the absence of a showing that the pie method is the only one recognized in surveying practice and is the only result possible, it is within the province of the trial court to determine the weight and credibility of these two expert witnesses and to choose which method to follow. See, Rosen v. DILHR, 267 Wis. 220, 225, 64 N.W.2d 845, 847 (1954)."
The burden of proof to show that they were then defective is, of course, on the plaintiff, and the ruling of the trial court is not to be disturbed unless it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Winslow v. Winslow, 257 Wis. 393, 43 N.W.2d 496; Rosen v. Ihler, 267 Wis. 220, 64 N.W.2d 845; Herzing v. Hess, 263 Wis. 617, 58 N.W.2d 430. In the effort on the part of the litigants to determine the point of responsibility, expert metallurgists were called by each party to assist the court.
See Rosen v. DILHR, 267 Wis. 220, 225, 64 N.W.2d 845, 847 (1954). Having failed to obtain the land by survey, Brekke next argues that she is entitled to the land because of her adverse possession under color of title.
Whether his opinion prevails as to locations of such lines and corners depends on his ability to find and evaluate evidence and convince the court of its soundness. In Rosen v.Ihler, 267 Wis. 220, 225, 64 N.W.2d 845 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 972 (1955), the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated: "The testimony of the surveyors clearly indicates that there was no unanimity of opinion between them as to correct survey practice that was to be employed under conditions as here in the ascertainment of the location of the section line. Mr. Corbett looked for lost corners and used the `proportionate method.' Mr. Hall and Mr. Grimmer, while considering the notes of the government survey, allowed specially for variation between the magnetic bearing and the true bearing.