The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-04-06
FEES FOR SURVEYING.
RI. M. THoMPsONv. E.w. BATES.
Outline of the Opinion Delivered
by Special Judge Robertson
in the District Court
Yesterday.

The case of r. NJ. Thompson v. E. W.
Bates, having been on trial since the
Gath instant, in the district court, the
Hon. J. w. Robertson sitting as special
Judge, was concluded Wednesday, and
the finding of the court on the law and
facts rendered and filed, as by law re-
quired. For trueness of statement and
ear analysis of facts, the finding of the
court on the law and facts, as written, is
a model.
The defendant is now and has been sur
veyor of Pecos county since November,
1880. During the year 1881, the plaintiff,
Thompson, as agent for other
parties filed in the Office of defen-
dant, as surveyor, for location
4S7 alternate land certificates. The field
work of the 974 surveys by virtue of the
4S7 alternate certificates was made by
H. G. Barton as deputy surveyor of
Pecos county, who had been appointed
such by the defendant at the request of
plaintiff, who had furnished his hand.
in accordance with an understanding or
agreement to that effect with defendant.
The plaintiff paid all the expenses Incl
dent to the locations, and paid the COM
pensation to the deputy, Barton, who
made out and certified to all the field
notes as deputy surveyor of Pecos
county, and filed the same in de-
| PENDANTS Office as county surveyor.
| The defendant, as county surveyor, eX-
amined, approved and recorded the field
notes as made out and returned bv Bar
ton and certified to their correctness as
required by law, the record books for
this purpose being furnished by the
! plaintiff. There was no contract or I'M
| derstanding between the defendant and
| said Barton as to fees for the work done by
Barton in the field. The defendantdid no
| part of the work, except to approve and
record the field notes made by Barton as
| deputy. The expenses incurred in max
ing the surveys in the field, including
| Barton's compensation, paid by the
plaintiff, was $l680. On the 18th of No
vember, 1881, plaintiff rendered defend
ant $1100, in payment of his fees, and
demanded possession of the papers in
controversy. Defendant declining to
accept, plaintiff sued out the writ of Sc
questration. The certificates and field
notes were seized by the sheriff by vir-
tue of the writ and subsequently, re-
plevied by plaintiff and filed in the gen.
eral land office, where they now are
| The plaintiff insisted on the trial-that
under the facts defendant was only en-
| titled to his legal fees of one dollar each
for inspecting, filing and recording the
! field notes of said ga surveys, and that
before he was entitled to his fees he was
bound to make out and file the necessary
plats or sketches of said surveys as Ie-
quired by law.
Defendant insisted that he was entitled
&c fees on the implied contract at the
rate of $1,000 each for 1876 certificates,
and at the rate of $1,000 each for 252
certificates. That if not entitled to re-
cover on such contract that he is
entitled to recover fees at the rate
of $1,000 mileage for making each
survey, and 81 90 for inspecting and
recording the field notes of each
survey being at the rate of SEC for each
certificate located if not on that basis,
that he be allowed to recover at the rate
of So per mile for each mile actually run
by said deputy, and 81 for inspecting
and recording the field notes of each
survey, less the actual and necessary eX-
penses paid by plaintiff in doing the
work in the field The fees claimed by
defendant under the first claim, as above,
amounted to the sum of $7,252, less a
credit of $317.
The court, on the facts and issues
thus presented, decided that de-
PENDANT was only entitled under the law
to fees at the rate of 81 for inspecting,
filing and recording the field notes of
each survey; he having done no part of
the field work in making said surveys,
was not entitled to any fees therefor;
and plaintiff having paid all expenses in
making said surveys, together with Bar
tons compensation, is only liable to pay
defendant his fees for inspecting and re-
cording field notes.