Court Opinion

ID: 9832716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:08:06.290599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:50.694267
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
A correction is desired to be made in the opinion heretofore handed down in this ease, on page 20 of said opinion (182 S. W. 350). The court was made to say in the opinion as follows:
“In view of the decision and disposition made of the case, we have not discussed the many propositions raised by appellants with reference to the introduction of testimony and the action of the trial court in admitting and excluding said matters.”
It should read:
“The many propositions raised by appellants with reference to special charges and the action of the trial court in admitting and excluding said matters.”
A further correction is made in the description of the land on the first page of the opinion (182 8. W. 341) where it is made to say:
“Beginning on said bank of said river above the old Coashatta Indian village at pecan.”
It should be “a pecan.”
We desire also to reform the opinion originally handed down in this case in this respect: That the judgment in the case should be that the north or northwest line of the grant should begin on the bank of the Trinity river and continue by a pecan 200 varas from the bank of the Trinity river; from thence run north 43 degrees east 15,833 varas to its northeast corner, and that the line shall run thence south 47 degrees east 7,500 varas to the southeastern corner of the grant, and thence running south 43 degrees west to the bank of the Trinity river, and thence with the said Trinity river to the beginning' point, and thus the boundaries of the grant are fixed.
It follows, from the decree as modified, that the east boundary of the Viesca grant is 200 varas further west than fixed in the original judgment. The judgment for damages is accordingly modified, and an inspection of the record shows that there should be deducted the following amounts, to wit: 85.45 acres of the D. W. Smith, Jr., survey, having 6,000 feet to the acre, at a valuation of $3 per thousand; 102.16 acres of the Wm. White, having 10,000 feet to the acre, at $3 per thousand; 28.32 acres of the Wm. Hicks, having 10,000 feet to the acre, at $3 per thousand-aggregating $5,452.50. This amount should be deducted from the original award of $30,936, and the judgment is accordingly reformed for the sum of $25,483.50, with interest at 6 per cent, from December 5, 1911, the date of the filing of the original petition.
At the earnest insistence of appellees, who have filed a very able and exhaustive motion for rehearing, we have again gone over the record, but find nothing that has caused us in any way to change our views, otherwise than as above, as expressed in the opinion heretofore handed down in this case.
The judgment will be reformed, in accordance with the views above expressed, and the motion for rehearing is in all things overruled.