Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-02
CIyIL COURT Of a PPEALS.
Fuil Report o. Decisions Reno cred y the
Court Tor Tho Second Di strict
NJ g. Day, appellant. W. II. ~. Nee ,en,,iii
Of a., appcllees. Appeal wv" N''''"

~ g. Day. appellant. "; T. ,1 ni Nf DsBio
Of a., appellees. Appeal '''"
county, CONCLUSION -.
This appeal ~ from yefthet enu l,, Jun Z
ment DERIVING appellant cool,anty. patente
10 the heirs OF William Wn,ptye' a., osteb
dict IL sustained BY the evidence ~ s' ~,
fishing the conclusion, tbat t ~ w" veated h
land In controversy had eeh Vic, sn,,t,
nppelloea labout which there ls,,Io, n ~ Ivy
harcl and that they We're sa ~ an
cover unless the adverse pos n 49,. o,,.i,,f
uelnnt under a tar decJi WHO ~ y -, y,
"a from the evidence. had tne enee' ~
dognatinr that tiue II this deed Wss sg
admissible for any Of the pnr ope,,, r,t ao
~ ' sflrsed W. siberSgiea Il must be reversed
u'ho Following is plat ~ tNe survey =.
described m tho patent anf N lnat NV ,ts,
IL fellows fbe conveying kuse, though IN
tho first part OF the deed where The levy
under tho tax roll - &c Hieu, ln4tena "a
culliug FOR north course from ~, me ,g,is9sn
west corner the call, cyli cptly W iAslhho'
Is, 70 run west b12 varaF inhteA9 OF ny.
The decd was O1cluded on inc kfouhu
that such an element gf uncettsia,y ~ nc bv
he expression, after setting out the GELD
notes. tiess 80 acres out Of the southwest
corner Of same" ai 70 render the iced
tion With the deed that the cx.
tremo southwest ana noflhWest
corners Of he survey could be, found
distinctly marked Upon tie ground as i
and that tho distance between these marx
% and we'll defined points was IN reality
bs7 varns instead of bi2 yaras,a as called Tor
Tho Contention OF appellant Is, that tho
90 acres should DC taken IN rec.
tangular form QUIT of the southwest corner
~ the survey nul hence tina. the deed on
it, face was sunlcienty certain as predi-
cato Tor his five years adverse possession.
This construction " the deed seems 20 VS.
the natural and Tg ciS AL, on e,d which
conveys a definite quantity or land 70 be
taken out Of a specified corner VIII De
sustained when u can be taken IA a square.
Smith w. Nelson lMo) 10 y w. hep, 1888
Doe w. Clayton lAla. so. Rep 81 Green
Va Jordan tAla.l Am. y. IteptB. III, IL
seems 20 MS th"t the principle upon which
these cascs rest requires that tao 90 acres
which cannot on the face OF the deed IN
question DO tnken IN square, should be
taken la TINT other form of n recinnTlo'
to.wlt an oblong. with the west boundary
~ a haselIlne. The contour OF tie survey
indicates this "a the obvious intention ~
the grnntuf In The deed. II would seem,
also, n this construction BE- Incorrect that
as the, uncertainty would relate only Ga
the west limb " The survey, ana not 60
ifs main trunk the deed would be- ndlnls
slble ia support OF the adverse possession
OF the latter part OF The survey. Such q
principle Of Construction seems 20 have
been applied by the supreme court or
Wisconsin to the description on n tract of
land living upon the east and west Sides NJ
a creek, the uncertainty or the dcscrp-
tiOn relating solely 10 the portion on the
west side % tho creek. Schcihor W. Koch.
Ter ~ Wis., 2lt. The rule adopted ia thla
state I'm passing upon the suilciency ~ u
tar deed To support the dcfcusc ~ i've |
years Limitation seems 10 be-, that the |
description rs sufficient n. unnidcd by exc
trinsic facts, II Antlanes tho mind that the |
land adversely occupied n embraced within |
the description contained IN the deed. lf |
90 the owner IL notified that bis posses.
sion has hccu Invaded, Brokcl " Mckccknlo |
% Texas, ~, Mcdonald w Hamhlln, rs /
Texas, Cos; Harder vs. Dychcs 10 ~ w |
Rep $50. II seems 10 VS.. FROM the dcacrp. |
tiOn contained In this deed. without tile |
aid OF oxtriislc evidence. that tile lnud /
which II purpOrts 10 convey can BE- found /
aud ldcuuhed with reasonable certainty |
hence the second contention that the oral 4
testimony offered rendered the deed nd |
miaslblr, ncod not Doe considered Ovornnd |
vs. Alonczer. 80 Texas. ~. Thla conclu- |
sion loads 60 a reversal OF the Judgment /
The cause viii be- remandcd Tor II new |
trial on the Issues OF Limitation and valu.
able improvements which were not sub.
mittcd 10 the jury on the former trial; but |
the issues submitted and pusscd upon will
not be rcopeucd, Mcdonnell vs. Wall, ~ /
VoAaJ, 3l2, % Texas, ,ll
STEPHENS.
Associate Justice.