Case Name: KENDRICK v. JOHNSON et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-11-14
Citations: 173 S.W. 914
Docket Number: No. 7983
Parties: KENDRICK v. JOHNSON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 173
Pages: 914–916

Head Matter:
KENDRICK v. JOHNSON et al.
(No. 7983.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.
Nov. 14, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 13, 1915.)
1. Boundaries <@=337 — Evidence — Sufficiency-Location of Corner.
In a suit to determine the boundary line between two surveyed blocks, evidence held sufficient to sustain the finding of the court that the southeast corner of one block was located at a point 317 varas north of where it should be according to the call for course and distance.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Boundaries, Cent. Dig. §§ 184-194; Dee. Dig. <@=>37.]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Boundaries <@=>37 — Evidence — Sufficiency — Location of Corner.
In a boundary suit, evidence held to show, contrary to the finding of the court, that the south line of a certain block ran southwesterly from the southeast corner to the corner of blocks in another survey, rather due west, according to the course called for.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Boundaries, Cent. Dig. §§ 184^-194; Dec. Dig. <@=>37.]
3. Boundaries <@=>1 — Determination — Rules'.
The object of the rules for the ascertainment of boundary lines is to determine where the line was originally in fact located by the surveyor, not where it should have been located.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Boundaries, Cent. Dig. § 1; Dec. Dig. <@=ol. ]
4. Boundaries <@=>3 — Determination—Relative Importance — Course and Distance.
The call for course and distance is a lower grade of evidence, and must yield to a call for a natural object, marked tree, or a fixed determinable corner.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Boundaries, Cent. Dig. §§ 3-41; Dec. Dig. <@=>3.]
Dunklin, J., dissenting in part on motion for rehearing.
Appeal from District Court, Young County; P. A. Martin, Judge.
Boundary suit between P. S. Kendrick and R. J. Johnson and others. From a decree determining the boundaries, Kendrick appeals.
Affirmed, and motion for rehearing granted in part, and judgment of court below modified.
J. A. King, of Albany, Arnold & Arnold, of Graham, and Theodore Mack, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. Kay & Akin, of Graham, for appellees.

Opinion:
CONNER, C. J.
This is a boundary suit in which the principal controversy is over the dividing line between section 2914, owned by appellant, Kendrick, and section 2915, immediately south, owned by one of the ap-pellees. The evidence shows that in August, 1853, a block of surveys, rectangular in form, which is designated in the evidence as the 700 block, was located and surveyed by one Joseph Bledsoe. The eastern line of the block is irregular, but in a general way extends from the southwest to the northeast. Thus survey 733 lies immediately east of survey 732. The southwest corner of 732 is made the northeast corner of 734; the southwest corner of 734 is made the northeast corner of 736, and so on. In October of the same year one Baker located and surveyed the unappropriated land lying to the south and east of the 700 block, being the block to the older surveys. The latter surveys were designated in the evidence as the 2900 block. Survey 2914 lies immediately south of survey 734 and east of 736. The field notes of 2914 call to begin at the southeast corner of survey 734; thence south 1,344 varas to a stake, calling for live oak bearing trees; thence west 1,344 varas, calling for haekberry bearing trees, which are also called for in the field notes of survey 736 at its southeast comer; thence north 1,344 varas to the southwest corner of 734; thence east 1,344 varas to the place of beginning. No corner identified as made by the original surveyor was found either at the southeast or southwest corners of 734, or at the southeast corner of 736; nor does it appear that either the east, south, west, or north lines of survey 2914 was marked. The southeast corner of 734 was clearly fixed, however, by course and distance from original corners identified in the 700 block to the north and west. So fixing the southeast corner of 734, the court in its decree fixed the south boundary line of 2914 at a point 317 varas north of where course and distance as called for in survey 2914 would have placed it, and the principal contention on this appeal is that the evidence does not support such a finding.
The evidence has been carefully considered, and we feel unable to disturb the decree below. The evidence suggests that the surveyor of block 2900 put in his surveys from base lines running north and south, occasionally fixing corners which were identified in the evidence, and that from these base lines the surveys were platted in with the evident purpose of connecting on to the 700 block, and of making the lines running east and west as extensions of the like lines on block 700. From the well-identified corners found in the 2900 block and in the 700 block it is quite evident, however, that Baker, in surveying the 2900 block, supposed the 700 block of surveys to be 317 varas farther north than they are actually found to be on the ground, thus causing a conflict. The southeast corner of 2914, however, as fixed in the court's decree, is in harmony with other identified corners in block 2900, and one witness testified to the effect that at the southeast corner of 2914, as so fixed, he once found a live oak tree that had been recently partly burned, and which the surveyor of the county, one Hollingsworth, declared to have been a bearing tree for that corner. He further testified that the live oak roots could yet be found by digging, and that there was no other live oak in the vicini ty. So that we do not feel that we could disturb the finding for the southeast corner of 2914. The extension of the south line west by course and distance as called for in the field notes of the survey cannot, we think, be disturbed, inasmuch as the line so fixed is in harmony with the calls and with all other lines of the 2900 block, and also in harmony with the evident purpose of the original surveyor to make the surveys rectangular in form, and inasmuch as the field notes of 2914 do not distinctly call for the southeast corner of 736, nor is there an identified corner at the southeast corner of 736, nor does the evidence show that there was found the original bearing trees called for in the field notes of 2914 for its southwest corner so as to require an extension of the south line of 2914 in a southwesterly direction from the southeast corner of 2914, as fixed by the court, to the southeast corner of survey 736, as ascertained by course and distance from identified comers in the 700 block to the north. In brief, the question is not where we would have fixed the south line of 2914, but the question is: Does the evidence support the findings of the trial court? And we think it does.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
@=5For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes