Court Opinion

ID: 9832414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:53:41.527331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.617733
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[18] Appellant in its motion for rehearing insists that the explanation of the map attached to the original grant should not be considered, for the reason that the grant states that the land granted is “fixed under the corners and boundaries set forth in the attached map.” The attached map has upon it the letters “a,” “b,” “c,” “d,” “mi.” “h” and “g,” as shown in the opinion herein. These letters, without any explanation, would be meaningless; but under said map in the original grant is the explanation of same, made by the surveyor general, showing that these letters indicate the boundaries of the surrounding surveys. This explanation indorsed on the map is a part thereof.
Appellant finds fault with the conclusion of this court that the “descriptive” matter in the field notes of the patent was made from an office survey. Our reasons for this conclusion are set forth in the fourteenth subdivision of the opinion; but the correctness of this deduction is not essential to the correctness of the judgment rendered herein. If “La Huerta” was an actual survey, and the surveyor began on the southwest corner of “Las Anaeuas,” then he made a mistake in his call for distance in his first and second line, as is evidenced by his call for the southeast corner of the San Juan del Mes-quital as being at the end of his first run, and the northeast corner of the Ramirez as being at the end of his second run, as shown by the notations on said map. It is true that to run the first line south 10,000 varas, as shown by the map, would reach the southeast corner of the San Andres (San Juan del Mesquital), as said survey was patented by the state; but the second call, west 1,350 varas, would not reach the Ramirez, but, on the contrary, would reach the inner corner of the San Andres as patented by the state. In the original opinion herein we stated that we thought the proper way to construct La Huerta grant was to. extend its first line from the southwest corner of Las Anaeuas to the southeast corner of the San Juan del Mesquital (San Andres), and that this corner could be found by extending the east and south lines of said land from their known corners to the point of intersection, which would give a distance of 12,476 varas for the first line of La Huerta, instead of 10,000. We did not by this language mean the San Andres as patented by the state, but we meant the San Juan del Mes-quital as it was at the date of the survey of La Huerta, at least, as the surveyor who made the La Huerta supposed it to be, as shown by his map. The field notes of San Juan del Mesquital as granted by the Mexican government are not in the record; but *239the map attached to La Huerta indicates the east line of the same is an unbroken line, and its southeast corner is east of the northeast corner of the San Pedro de Charco Re-dondo (Ramirez). The field notes of the Ramirez survey as granted by the Mexican government are not found in the record, but, as there is nothing to indicate the contrary, we must presume that they are the same in the patent as in the Spanish grant As stated in the opinion, the original southwest corner of San Juan del Mesguital and the northeast corner of San Pedro de Charco Redondo (Rafael Ramirez) as made by the surveyor of these Spanish grants are found and identified upon the ground, and called for in the patents issued by the state.
[19] Appellant asks us to pass specifically upon its third assignment of error, which is to the effect that appellees are estopped by the patent issued by the state to the heirs of Jose Antonio Gonzales, original owner of La Huerta grant, from claiming any land not included in said patent. We overruled this assignment for the reason that there is nothing in the record to show that the appellees herein, or any of them, or those under whom they claim, had anything to do with the granting of said patent or the making of the survey by virtue of which said patent was issued. On the contrary, it appears from the record that in 1872, soon after the issuance of said patent, Salome Fierros and Antonio Maria Palacios, assignees of a portion of the heirs of Antonio Gonzales, deceased, for themselves and for all of the heirs of Antonio Gonzales, deceased, by their attorney, J. L. Hays, protested against said survey and patent as being incorrect. And it further appears that some of the appellees herein have been living on and claiming the land in controversy for a great many years, thereby showing that they did not acquiesce in the Issuance of said patent, or the correctness of the description therein contained.
Motion for rehearing overruled.