Court Opinion

ID: 9828362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:19:28.370992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.558209
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have carefully examined the motion of appellants for rehearing and find nothing presented therein which would cause us to recede from our previous holding.
The motion is therefore overruled without further comment.'
Appellees have also filed a motion requesting us to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law and to pass upon their several counter propositions. They call our attention to the fact that in the case of Miller v. Yates (Tex Civ. App.) 15 S.W.(2d) 730, we inadvertently stated that at the time of the filing of the original field notes of surveys 101, 102, 103, and 104, by O. W. Williams, deputy surveyor, in 1887, there was actually on the ground enough unappropriated public domain between the south line of Runnels county school land league No. 3 and the north line of block 104, Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company to accommodate the location of four full surveys having a width of 1,900 varas north and south, while in the instant case we say: “It is not denied that there was not as indicated-by the map of Pecos County in the Land Office sufficient vacant land between Runnels County School Land League No. 3, and Block 194, G. C. & S. E. Ry. Co., to permit the location of four surveys having a width north and south of 1900 varas and it is admitted that on the ground there was not sufficient land to accommodate four such sections.”
It probably was not admitted in Miller v. Yates, supra, as here, that there was an actual conflict on the ground, and appellees may be correct in their belief that such statement caused the granting of the writ in that ease.
Such is not true here, however, and certainly the Supreme Court will not grant a writ based upon the fact that no conflict existed on the ground.
While in this particular the facts in the present case and Miller v. Yates are apparently different, yet, as said in our original opinion, we can see no reason why the doctrines laid down in that case should not apply here. We feel so confident of the correctness of our original holding in this case that we deem it unnecessary to incumber the record with a discussion of appellees’ counter propositions, and their motion will accordingly also be overruled.