Court Opinion

ID: 9831219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:55:45.277274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.685040
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
As shown by our original opinion in this; case, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Appellants have filed their motion for rehearing, and in disposing of same we submit the following:
As stated in our original opinion, it is-shown by the undisputed evidence that Surveyor Trott made a survey to locate the common boundary line between the Luke Moore-survey and' the Tierwester survey, same being the west line of the Moore and the east line of the Tierwester. Such survey was made-by Trott in 1838, and- was thought by him to-be the true dividing line between the above-mentioned surveys, which was 125 varas west of the line as established by the Supreme-Court in 1890. It was shown that from the-time the Trott line was established in 1838 up to the year I860 it was generally recognized and accepted by those owning land bordering-thereon as the true east line of the Tierwes-ter ; that the surveyor who surveyed and located the ten acres conveyed by Kuhlman to Kunst in 185-7 began his survey at the southeast corner of a tract of ten acres theretofore surveyed and located for' one Helmes, or Holmes, the east line of which at that early date and long prior to the establishment of' the east line of the Tierwester by the decision of the Supreme Court was located on the Trott line 125 varas, or 347 feet, west of said Tierwester line as established by the-Supreme Court.
Prior to the filing of appellants’ motion for-rehearing in this court, appellants conceded that, if as a fact the beginning point called-, for in the deed from Kuhlman to Kunst by which the Kunst ten acres were conveyed was in the Trott line, it was 125 'varas, or 347 feet, west’ of the true east line of the Tier-wester, and that in such case the land sued for would be-within the boundaries of the-Kunst ten-acre tract, but in their motion for rehearing filed in this court, by a marshaling of figures, appellants’ counsel undertakes to show that the call in the deed from Kuhlman to Kunst to run 312½ varas from the S. E. corner of the Helmes or Holmes survey would not reach Sampson street by 112 feet.
Counsel in his motion states that the deed, from Kuhlman to Kunst conveying this ten. acres calls for its north line to -be 312½ varas,, or 868 feet, in length. Such statement is in*637correct, In that 312½ varas is 872 feet. He states that surveyor Gillespie surveyed such north line in „1927, and, after beginning on the east line of Sampson street, he ran east to an iron pin “which he took to be the N. W. (meaning the N. E.) corner of the Kunst ten acres, and from this point to the center of Scott Street was 519 feet, a total distance of 1080 feet.” It will be at once observed that the two sums given by counsel, to wit, ,868 and 519, added together is 1,387 and not 1,080. It is seen that Gillespie states only that he took the iron pin to be the northwest (meaning the northeast) corner of the ten acres, but he does not give the distance such pin was from the east line of Sampson street. If you take 1,080 feet, stated by counsel to be the distance from the east line of Sampson street to what is now known to be the true east line of the Tierwester survey, and deduct therefrom 125 varas, or 347 feet, the distance between the true line and the Trott line, there will be left only 733 feet to reach Sampson street, and not 868, as stated by counsel.
Counsel still contends that it is shown 'oy the undisputed evidence that the surveyor who surveyed and laid out the three ten-acre tracts for Kuhlman, one of which was for Helmes, one for Kunst, and the other for Vo-gel, established the east line of such tracts in what is now known to be the true east line of the Tierwester survey, and then he figures that, if you measure 868 feet (instead of 872), the length of the north line of the Kunst ten-acre tract, you would not reach Sampson Street by 112 feet.
Counsel is in error in assuming that there was any evidence showing that such surveyor did establish the east line of the said ten-acre tracts in the true east line of the Tierwester; to the contrary, all the evidence shows that such east line was established in the old Trott line. So a line running 872 feet west from the old Trott line will no doubt reach the east line of Sampson street. .
If it were conceded that the iron pin,'which Gillespie took to be the northeast corner of the Kunst ten acres was in fact such corner, and if it be conceded that such corner was 519 varas west of the true east line of the Tierwester survey, it must be conceded that running from such corner west 312½ varas would reach Sampson street, if not pass beyond it.
Again, if the iron pin found by Gillespie, which he took to be the northeast corner of the Kunst ten-acre tract, is 519 feet from the true east line of the Tierwester survey, as contended by counsel for appellants in his motion, and that, if that ^umber of feet is deducted from 1,080 feet, said by counsel to be the entire distance from the Tierwester east line to Sampson street, it would leave only 561 feet for the north line of the Kunst ten-acre tract, which falls far short of the length called for in that line in the deed from Kuhl-man to Kunst. Certainly counsel will not earn'estly contend that the iron pin found by Gillespie was in fact any corner of the Kunst ten-acre tract.
After making his remarkably erroneous figures, counsel jumps to the erroneous statement that the "beginning point called for in the survey of the Kunst ten acres is located in the now known east line of the Tierwester survey, and upon such statement proceeds to show that, if 868 feet is taken from 1,080 feet, stated by him to be the entire distance from the Tierwester east line to Sampson street, there would be left 112 feet short of reaching Sampson street, and therefore this 112 feet, which would embrace the land sued for, is not within the boundaries of the Kunst ten-acre tract. The fallacy of such contention is shown by the evidence stated in our original opinion.
The motion is denied.