Case Name: William M. Crow v. J. C. Reed
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 392
Docket Number: 
Parties: William M. Crow v. J. C. Reed.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 392–394

Head Matter:
William M. Crow v. J. C. Reed.
Where a locator has not had his field-notes recorded, and has taken no steps " to perfect his title, he is in no condition to attack a party who holds the the land by a regular patent.
Appeal from Dallas. The case was tried before Hon. Hat. M. Bureord, one of the district judges.
Crow sued Reed to recover a fraction of a section of land, where there was a conflict of" title by the lapping over of surveys, in the surveyed district of Peters’ colony.
Appellant selected his land upon two sections, Ho. 11, and Ho. 14, which lies immediately south of it. He alleged in his petition that .both sections were vacant and unappropriated at the time of his settlement. He employed a deputy surveyor to run off and mark the boundaries of his selection, including nearly all of section 11, and about forty acres of the north end of section. 14. There was a spring on his selection, near his south boundary, on section 14, and he built his first improvements— a cabin and field—on 14, but finally extended them upon 11, and made a large farm.
The appellee, in surveying a location in the northeast corner of 14, lapped on that of appellant, and cut off his spring.
Appellant settled on the land during the existence of the colony contract, (1847,) and it was then vacant. He obtained his certificate as a colonist on the 14th day of ¡November, 1851. He caused Ms selection to be surveyed and correctly run out on the 23d day of June, 1852, and made his file, as required by statute, with the agent of Peters’ company, on the 30th day of the same month. (Paschal’s ¡Dig., Art. 851.) Verdict and judgment for defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed.
John M. Orochett, for appellant.
—Appellee obtained a patent for the land in controversy on the 21st of June, 1856.
It is contended, that if we do not claim by the colony lines, we were bound to have our field-notes duly made out, and recorded in the district surveyor’s office.
Such we do not Understand to have been the design of the legislature, by the 4th section of the act of February 10, 1852. (Pamph. Acts, p. 74; Paschal’s Dig., Art. 851.) The descriptions of locations of colonists, under this section of the statute, were to be made by the colonist, under his hand and seal, and delivered to the agent, for the benefit of the company, to enable them to distinguish the locality of each and all the settlers, and select their lands from the residue.
The medium of obtaining the patent by the settler was the agent’s office, and the data of the general land office for issuing the patent were the maps and descriptions returned by the agent of the company.
The district surveyor’s office was not the channel through which the settlers were to transmit their field-notes to the general land office for patenting. The language of said section 4 ’is, “which description of land and maps and field-notes of surveys, made by said colonists, with the names of the persons claiming the same, said agent shall return to the commissioner of the general land office,” &c.
“ The map and field-notes of their said survey, correctly made out,” does not imply that it must be returned and recorded in the district surveyor’s office.
If the colonist returned his own map and field-notes correctly made out, the object of the law was accomplished.
Crow, the appellant, had his claim correctly surveyed, and returned it to Iledgcoxe, the agent of the company, and he received it.
George W. Gi.iess, for appellee.
—If the motion to dismiss be overruled, then the plaintiff below showed no title to the land. His field-notes that were ruled but were not in form to be admitted in evidence, not being recorded or certified to by a district surveyor. (See Acts of 1853 relating to Peters’ colony.)
But grant that plaintiff showed a good title. Defendant produced the patent to the land from the State of Texas, and there ivas no attempt made to attack the pat-' ent. Even if plaintiff’s field-notes had been admitted, they would have availed nothing against defendant’s patent. It is conclusive, until a strong equity is shown why it should be cancelled. Appellep is at a loss to-discover any grounds of complaint upon which it is expected to reverse the judgment. The grounds assumed in the motion to dismiss do seem to be good; but, if not, it is not believed there is any error in the judgment. Authorities are useless in such a case as this.

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
—We are of opinion that there is no error in this case.
The plaintiff did not have the field-notes of his survey recorded, nor did he take such other steps in perfecting his title as were necessary to put him in a position to demand a patent for the land which he had surveyed by the deputy surveyor.
Judgment affirmed.