Court Opinion

ID: 9759666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:24:23.642257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:03.934876
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Calvert,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment entered.
I disagree with that portion of the opinion in which it is held that the calls in the deed “with the meanders of the elevation 1020 contour line” is not a meander line. That holding is unnecessary to a decision of the case, and is wholly immaterial. In adopting the rule of Welder v. State the majority tacitly recognizes that the plaintiffs could not have acquired under their deed from the defendant any part of the bed of Lake Buchanan, even if the calls for the 1020 contour line do constitute meander lines. That being true, a holding that the call is not a meander line is a decision of a purely academic question, but it is one by which I would not care to be bound in a case wherein such a call was material to its decision.
Opinion delivered June 24, 1959.