Court Opinion

ID: 9829177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:02:53.331783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.923423
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In a very vigorous and forceful motion for rehearing, appellants attack all of the, material conclusions of fact and law contained in our former opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court. We deem it necessary to discuss only one of the complaints presented in the motion.
The sixth assignment presented in the motion complains of the following conclusion expressed in our original opinion:
“We do not think the description of the land adjudged appellees by the trial court shows a different tract of land from that described in appellees’ cross-petition. The differences in the description are more apparent than real. *71Both purport to describe a survey of 640 acres known and designated as section 2, H. T. & B. survey, adjoining and lying east oí section' 1 oí said survey, north of the Howth and Moody surveys, and south of the Hillegeist and Hirseh surveys. The apparent differences in the two descriptions are largely, if not entirely, due to the fact that the description in the judgment begins at the northeast corner of the survey, while that in the petition begins at the southwest corner. If the field notes given in appellees’ petition are followed from the beginning corner, they will include the land described in the judgment, with the possible exception of a small acreage in the northwest corner.”
A further consideration of the pleadings and evidence has convinced us that we erred in this holding.
Appellees’ cross-petition describes the land sued for by them by metes and bounds, and this description places the S. W. corner of their land at a point on the north line of the Moody survey 256 varas west of the N. W. corner of the Howth survey, and fixes their N. E. corner and the N. W. corner of the Stansbury survey at a point on the south line of the A. Hillegeist survey 946 varas east of the S. W. corner of that survey. The location of these lines and corners of the Moody, Howth and Hillegeist, as found by the trial court, are well known and established, and it is manifest that a considerable portion of the land awarded appellees by the judgment is not within the field notes given in appellees’ petition. Having so fixed the boundaries of the land claimed by them, appellants could not have anticipated that ap-pellees were claiming land east of these boundaries, and the judgment of the trial court fixing the location of the H. T. & B. survey No. 2 further east than the appellees’ petition places it, while supported by the evidence, cannot be sustained, because it conflicts with appellees’ pleadings. Roche v. Lovell, 74 Tex. 191, 11 S. W. 1079.
This conclusion requires that the motion for rehearing be granted, and the judgment of the trial court reversed, and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.
Granted.