The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-06-26
BOUNDARY CASE DECIDED.
montague County Won Disputed Ter
rItOry from Misc.

y
Fort Worth Texas, June 25.-The court
OF civil appeals yesterday affirmed the
boundary case OF Wise county against
Montague county, tried before District
Judge Irby Dunklin in this county some
months ago, The action was brought to
establish the boundary line between the
two counties.
Wise county contended that 1t had the
line in question legally established and
surveyed by one L. e. Camp in 1856; II
not then that it was legally surveyed and
established by A. Devereaux In 1877. or
that If neither of these surveys were leg
ally made and the line established tho
legislature of Texas by act passed July o.
1879, made Montague county's south line
conform to the north line of Wise and
Jack counties and the plaintiff claimed
that the north line Of Jack county had
been established in 1876 and that to begin
at the northeast corner of Wise county
and run to the northeast corner of Jack
| county was the meaning of the act Of that
Legislature of July g. 1879. Montague
county oontended that neither the Camp
or DevereauX lines of surveys made under
order OF the commissioners court of Wise
county were legally established boundary
line between the two counties, contend
ing that the county commissioners court
of Wise county did not proceed according
to the law and give the notice to the adj
! Joining counties as required, and that the
survey was begun and made at a different
| time and place than that fixed In the order
of the commissioners court of Wise county
! directing It to be made. Montague county
also maintained that the act of July 8,
1879, did not mean to make its south line
to run from the northeast corner of Jack
J county, and that If the legislature so in
| tended, it was unconstitutional. The jury S
verdict was that said line had never been
established and marked and established
it so as to begin at point thirty miles
| north and six miles west from the south
west corner of Denton county and thence
running from the said beginning point
! twenty miles to a connection with
the west line of Wise county. which said
| twenty four miles was decreed to be and
was established by the court as the true
! boundary line between appellant and APP
! pellee. The court concluded as matter
OF law that the principle enunciated by
| Chief Justice Tarlton in the case of Mar
/ sails VS.. Garrison applied to The case al
| bar. That since the jury failed to find or
the trial that notice was given Cooke
cour ty of the running of the line, the pro-
ceeding on the part of Wise county was
purely eyparte
Appellant cites the cases of Wright VS.
Jores (3S S. w Rep, 251) and Gaines VS.
Newbrough Is. w. Rep, 104@ as authority
for giving conclusive effect to the proceed
ings of the commissioners courts as courts
of general jurisdiction, But in the opin
ion of the court no conflict exists between
these cases and the case of Marsalis VS.
Garrison. 1t was not within the scoops
of the powers conferred upon the count!
or commissioners court to settle by jude
4 ial determination disputed boundary line
The only power given was to appoint th'
surveyor and run and establish the dis
puted line. The court therefore conclude
that the proceeding being special onF
and the jurisdiction limited the presume
tion to uphold proceedings of tribunals
general jurisdiction are inadmfs5ible, an'
that the presumption arising from the ac'
ton OF Wise county was therefore no
greater than the presumption arising IRON
the action of Cooke or Montague.