Case Name: R. and M. Johnson v. D. R. Garrett
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-04
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 13
Docket Number: 
Parties: R. and M. Johnson v. D. R. Garrett.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 13–20

Head Matter:
R. and M. Johnson v. D. R. Garrett.
A deed of conveyance to land described it as “ beginning at the west corner of the Gonzales survey, thence south, 45° E., to Bridges’ corner; thence north, 45° E., to Bridges’ corner on Thorn’s line; thence north 45° W., to the south boundary line of the Esculan survey; thence south, 45° W., to the beginning, to include 571 acres of land; and if said point will not include sufficient of land to make the complement, (571 acres,) it is'to run north on the said Esculan survey for deficit.” The terms of this deed indicate a clear intention of the grantor to convey all his land in the west corner of the Gonzales league, bounded on one side by Bridges’ line, and on the other by Thorn’s line; it is equally clear that it was intended that this tract, thus bounded, should contain 571 acres, and if not, the deficiency should be supplied by addition from the Esculan league.
The tract, thus bounded, in fact contained an excess of 80 acres over 571 acres, which the grantor afterwards sold to another party, under whom the defendants claim, who are sued in this action by a party claiming under the first grantee. The defendants attacked the conveyance made by their common grantor, through which the plaintiff claims, upon the ground that the corners and lines called for of the Bridges and Thorn tracts, were, at the date of its execution, merely conjectural, alleging that no division lines between the owners of the said tracts and the said grantor had then been made, and urging that the deed conveyed no more than 571 acres. Held, that it not being made manifest that the calls of boundary in the deed were merely conjectural, and that the land was sold by the acre, or that just so many acres, and no more, were intended to be conveyed, there is no authority for restricting the title of the plaintiff to just 571 acres of the land described in the deed, and excluding therefrom the excess of 80 acres claimed by the defendants.
A plea of the statute of limitations, of three years’ adverse possession, (Paschal’s Digest, Art. 4623,) is not supported by proof that the -agent of the party claiming title to land under it had contracted, its occupancy to the party who went into possession for a stipulated price per annum, as a purchaser of the improvement, but who expressly refused to rent it, expressing his apprehensions of a lawsuit with the adverse claimant of the land.
Appeal from Kaufman. Tried below before Hon. K. A. Reeves, one of the district judges.
This was an action of trespass to try title, brought by David R. Garrett against R. and M. Johnson, to recover the tract of land described by a deed from R. D. Wood to one T. E. Garrett, an extract from which is quoted in the opinion. The defendant claimed 80 acres of the land included within the boundaries described in said deed, under a deed subsequently made, to wit, in the spring, A. D. 1853, from said Wood to Robert Jones, who after-wards conveyed the said eighty acres to the defendants. The deed from Wood to Garrett described the tract conveyed as a part of that which was granted to John S. Thom, as the assignee of Lucilla Gonzales. The Gonzales tract is in a square shape, the angles of which are the cardinal points. The subdivisions of the tract are as follows: An oblong tract, on the northeast side, belonging to L. M. Thorn; also the tract conveyed to Garrett, oblong shape, running from the southwest line of the Gonzales league tract to L. M. Thom’s tract, and having the northwest line of the Gonzales survey, and the southeast line of the Escudan survey, (said line being a common or division line between those two surveys,) for its northwest line, and bounded on the southwest by the Bridges tract, which lies parallel with said Garrett tract, and each of them having L. M. Thorn’s southwest line and the southwest line of the Gonzales tract for boundaries. The Esculan tract is directly northwest from and adjoining to the Garrett tract. The 80 acres of land in controversy is the end of the Garrett tract, adjoining L. M. Thorn’s, and is described by metes and' bounds in the deed from Wood to Jones, and also in that to the defendants. The question involved is, whether the first deed from Wood conveyed the 80 acres.
It was proved by the defendants, on the trial, that Garrett’s deed, calling, as it does, for Bridges’ corner, includes 651 acres of land; and that, if the survey is made to include 571 acres, then the 80 acres would not be included in said deed. It was also proved, by a witness for the defendants, that sometime in the year 1852, he ran the division line between B. D. Wood and them, (meaning, as the reporter takes it, between Wood and L. M. Thorn,) but whether it was done before or after the making of Wood’s deed to T. E. Garrett, he does not remember; he thought the Bridges line was run in the fall or winter of 1852-53. The witness further stated, that, at the time he run off the Bridges tract, he ascertained where Garrett’s survey would be, according to the course and distance given in his deed; and that he ran off the 80-acre survey. He stated that he did not remember the time this was done; that the sale to Jones was made afterwards; he thought in March, 1853. Also, that Jones was in possession of the land at the time of his purchase, and so continued for a year or two.
The defendant introduced Bridges as a witness, who stated that his original survey was originally run through the league by a different line, the survey being made in the harvest-time of 1852; that afterwards Woods and himself agreed to change the survey, and it was accordingly altered on the 8th January, 1853, to the limits represented on a map, (which was used by agreement on the trial, representing all the lines of the respective tracts of land.)
The witness further stated, that if Garrett’s survey was made to run to Ms (Bridges’) corner, as established in 1852, it would include about 1,000 acres, but if made to run to his corner on Thorn’s line, as surveyed in January, 1853, it would include 651 acres.
He further stated, that Jones occupied the land in com troversy until the fall of 1853, when he left a tenant in possession, who occupied it during the year 1854, paying Jones the rent therefor. Afterwards the witness (Bridges) went into possession under th^following circumstances: Jones’s agent proposed to rent the place to him, which he refused, because “there was some talk of Garrett’s coming and claiming the land, and he would not stand a lawsuit about it; but agreed to buy the improvement, and did so, and was to give $20 if he kept the place one year, and $35 if he kept it two years, or a longer period.” Bnder that contract, he remained two years on the place. One of the defendants has had possession, cultivating it, ever since. This suit was commenced on the 24th day of April, 1858.
The court charged the jury, that, if Bridges’ corner, as called for in the Garrett survey, was established at the time the survey was made for Garrett, the call for the corner would control the call for the course and distance, and all the land up to Bridges’ corner would pass to T. E. Garrett under the deed from R. D. Wood, though the quantity may exceed 571 acres. But if Bridges’ comer had not been established at the date of the survey for T. E. Garrett, and Ms survey Avas laid doAvn by conjecture, he would be restricted to the call for distance and the marked line; and the 571 acres only Avould pass under the deed from Wood to Garrett, to be decided from the evidence.
The court further charged them, that if they found there was no conflict between the tract for 571 acres and the tract of 80 acres, claimed by the defendants, they would find for them. But, if there was a conflict, or if T. E. Garrett was entitled to the land up to the Bridges corner, they would decide whether the plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitation of three years. On that question, the court charged the jury, that if they believed, from the evidence, that the defendants, and the persons under whom they claimed, had the adverse possession of the tract of 80 acres, claiming it as their own under the deed from Wood to Jones, and from Jones to the defendants, for the period of three years next before the commencement of this suit, the plaintiff would be barred by the statute from recovering the 80-acre tract, and the defendants entitled to a verdict.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered in accordance therewith.
The defendants assigned as error, the charge given by the court to the jury, and that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.
J. G. Robertson, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
—The first question is upon construction of the deed from Wood to Garrett. The land conveyed in that deed is described as follows: "Beginning at the west corner of the Gonzales survey; thence south, 45° E., to Bridges' corner; thence north, 45° E.,to Bridges' corner on Thorn's line; thence north, 45° W., to the south boundary line of the Esculan survey; thence south, 45° W., to the beginning; to include five hundred and seventy-one acres of land, and if said point will not include sufficient of land to make the complement, (571 acres,) it is to run north, on the said Esculan survey, for deficit." This deed was executed on the 23d day of September, 1852. The ^Gonzales league, in the west corner of which this land is situated, was partly owned by Thorn, and a division line between him and Wood was agreed on, and run out sometime in 1852. It does not appear that it was not before Wood made the deed to Garrett. There is nothing to show that Wood did not then know where that line would run, or had been run, when he called for Bridges' corner on that line. The right of Bridges to the land run out for him in the summer of 1852 does not appear. It may have depended upon a verbal contract, or its limits may have depended upon the line to be run for Thorn; so that, as soon as the Thorn line was settled upon, "Wood may have known that Bridges' line could not run further than the Thorn line, and, therefore, called for the Bridges corner on the Thorn line, knowing that it must be fixed there, when Bridges' land should be run out, so as not to interfere with Thorn's land. The Esculan league lay adjoining this land, conveyed to Garrett in the Gonzales league, and it must be presumed from the terms of the deed, it belonged also to W ood. If the boundary designated should not include five hundred and seventy-one acres, the deficiency was not to be made up by encroaching iipon Bridges on the southeast, or Thorn on the northeast, (even if Wood had the legal right so to do;) but by extending Garrett's boundaries over upon the adjoining Esculan league. The expression that "it is to run north on the said Esculan survey," is not strictly accurate, as the Esculan survey lies northwest of the Gonzales survey. This inaccuracy may be accounted for by observing, that the main body of the Esculan league (as presented to the eye on the map) lies due north of the tract designated in Garrett's deed.
There is nothing in the case, as here presented, therefore, to show that Wood, when he made the deed to Garrett, did not know, either where the comers called for were, or where they must necessarily be, considering the rights of Thom and Bridges. With this knowledge, he conveys to Garrett a tract of land, with certain fixed or determinable corners and boundary lines, within the Gonzales league; which are to be varied upon only one condition: that is, if the tract designated should be less than 571 acres. In that event, there is provision made for extending the boundaries of the tract over upon the Esculan league, until • the deficit should be made up. But in no event is it provided that the boundary designated within the Gonzales league should he contracted. The terms of the deed indicate a clear intention of the grantor to convey all his land, in the west corner of the Gonzales league, bounded on one side by Bridges' line, and on the other side by Thorn's line. It is equally clear that it was intended that this tract, thus bounded, should contain 571 acres; and, if not, the deficiency should be supplied by addition from the Esculan league. But it is not equally clear that it was intended that the boundaries of this tract should be curtailed, if there should be more in it than 571 acres. Because—
1. There is no certain evidence that the land was sold by the acre.
2. There are no words used to express an intention to restrict the conveyance to just 571 acres, and no more.
3. Had such been the intention of the grantor, there could have been no difficulty in expressing it.
4. Wood describes the lines and corners as if he knew them to exist, or as if he knew facts from which they were easily and certainly determinable; and it is not shown that such facts were not then known by him; and, therefore, we cannot say that the call for Bridges' corner on Thorn's line was entirely conjectural.
5. Although the terms of the deed induce the supposition that the grantor may have intended to sell out of the west corner of the league 571 acres of land, they, are more appropriate to indicate an intention to sell a particular tract, bounded by the designated calls within that corner, if it should contain 571 acres. It being made manifest that the calls of boundary in the deed were merely conjectural, and that the land was sold by the acre, or that just so many acres, and no more, were intended to be conveyed, there is no authority for restricting the title of Garrett to just 571 acres of the land described in the deed, and excluding therefrom the excess of eighty acres, which is claimed by the appellants.
The remaining question arises upon the proof adduced to sustain the plea of the statute of limitations of three years. To complete the proof of that plea, it was necessary to be shown, to the satisfaction of the jury, that the possession of the land by Bridges was a holding by a tenantcy under Jones.
The testimony of Bridges, in support of that position, was, that "Jones' agent proposed to rent the place to him, and he refused to rent it, because there was some talk of Garrett's coming and claiming the land', and he would not stand a lawsuit about it, but agreed to buy the improvement, and did so, and was to give $20 if he kept the place one year, and if he kept it two years he was to give $35, and for the balance of the time, if he kept it longer, he was ' to pay nothing." He kept it under that contract two years. The practice of buying and selling improvements which are made upon the land of other persons, or upon vacant land, was doubtless well known to the jury that tried this cause. They judged this to be an instance of that kind, and not a renting by Bridges, or a holding under Jones as his tenant.
We cannot say that their conclusion was incorrect.
Judgment affirmed.