What is the case law in the context of boundary disputes?

The following statement in Kingston v. Highland (1919) 47 NBR 324, at 329, states very clearly the view which I hold in connection with these boundary disputes: “It is by no means uncommon that we find men whose theoretical education is supposed to make them experts, who think, that when monuments are gone, the only thing to be done is to place new monuments where the old ones should have been, and where they would have been, if they had been placed correctly. This is a serious mistake. The problem is now the same as it was before—to ascertain by the best lights of which the case admits, where the original lines were. The original lines must govern, and the laws under which they were made must govern, because the land was granted, was divided, and has descended to successive owners under the original lines and surveys; it is a question of proprietary rights.”