Court Opinion

ID: 9833174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:30:42.113983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:12:40.864869
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.
After mature consideration of the motions for rehearing filed in this cause and a careful re-examination of the record, we are convinced that our former judgment herein correctly disposed of the issues presented. Appellees are the plaintiffs in this cause suing defendants in possession of the land in controversy, and the burden is upon them to show by some competent evidence that the land in controversy is within the boundaries described in the patent under which they claim. This burden is not met by the mere showing of discrepancies in some of the calls in the field notes of the survey claimed by appellants. Appellees contend very earnestly in their motions for rehearing that our conclusions of fact set out in our former opinion do not support the judgment ofi this court, but on the contrary sustain the judgment rendered in the court below. This contention is based upon the finding by us that, “from the fact that the beginning corner of survey No. 1 can be accurately fixed by the east line of the Baldwin survey and each of the next succeeding eight surveys call to begin on the east line or at one of the east corners of the next preceding survey, the beginning corners and west lines of surveys Nos. 7 and 8 can be definitely fixed.” If this finding be considered as locating the west lines of surveys Nos. 7 and 8 by giving controlling effect to the calls for the beginning corners of said surveys as fixed by running the lines of the preceding surveys, and disregarding the calls for Cedar Bayou, the only natural object called for in the field notes of any of these surveys, the west line of No. 8 would be placed about 3300 varas east of the southwest corner of the Scott survey. If the west line of No. 8 be thus fixed there is sufficient terri*138tory between said west line and the east line of the Baldwin survey to admit of the location of both the Weld and Champney surveys in accordance with the judgment of the court below, and appellees insist that under the finding above quoted the judgment heretofore rendered in this cause by this court should be set aside and the judgment of the court below affirmed. We do not think this contention is sound. Conceding for the sake of argument that the west line of Eo. 8 is fixed as claimed by appellees and that there is room between this line and the east line of the Baldwin to admit the location of the two surveys in question, it does not follow that appellees are entitled to have the Weld survey located as claimed by them. We think it is perfectly clear that the surveyor who made these locations intended that the Champney survey should cover all the area between the southwest corner of the Scott and the west line of survey Eo. 8, and if it be a fact that this area is largely in excess of the acreage called for in the field .notes, this fact would not in itself authorize the location of the Weld on a part of said area when the field notes of said survey clearly show that it was the intention of the surveyor to locate same west of the Scott survey. But we did not conclude in our former opinion that the west line of surveys Nos. 7 and 8 should be fixed alone by the calls for the beginning corners. We overlooked the discrepancies in distance in the calls from Cedar Bayou to said west lines and the actual distance from the bayou to said lines as fixed by the location of the beginning corners, and the finding before quoted is based upon the assumption that no such discrepancies existed. We think it clear as stated in our former opinion, that the surveyor knew the location of the south line and the southwest corner of the Scott survey and the actual distance between said corner and Cedar Bayou, and we think it equally clear that he intended the space between said points should be occupied by surveys No. 8 and the survey claimed by appellants. There is nothing in the evidence to authorize the crowding out of surveys Nos. 7 and 8 so as to admit the location of the Weld survey at a place different from that called for in its fi,eld notes. Appellees* petition shows that they have no definite idea as to where the land claimed by them is located. They sue for double the amount of land called for by their patent, and allege that the north and south lines of their survey are twice the length called for in the patent, the evident object of such allegations being to recover the amount of land called for in their patent, whether same should be found to be located over the Champney or the Baldwin surveys, and in their motion for rehearing appellees, who were plaintiffs below, ask that in event we adhere to our former opinion as to the location of the Champney survey that we render judgment locating the Weld survey over the old abandoned -Baldwin survey and on the land claimed by their coappellees. If the facts authorized the rendition of such judgment by us we could not grant this-relief, because the plaintiffs below have not appealed from the judgment and have filed no cross-assignments against their coappellees. It is true the plaintiff executor gave *139notice of appeal, but having presented no assignments his appeal must be considered abandoned. We are of opinion that our former judgment in this case should not be set aside or modified in any way, and the-motions for rehearing are overruled.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.