Court Opinion

ID: 9866555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 13:20:08.66136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:06.753354
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING .A rehearing having been granted, we have, on reconsideration, reached a different conclusion.  It was the task of the appellees to establish that the lands for which they sued were those deeded to their predecessors by the commissioners of the grant. The deed alone is relied on ás a source of title. The testimony of the surveyor shows affirmatively that he departed widely from the descriptions which should have controlled the survey. Relying on “statements” that the north line of the combined tracts was practically straight, he established the northeast corner 1,050 feet north of the southeast corner, though the deed itself calls for an east line of but 675 feet. He.thus materially enlarged the description. Assuming that it was the witness Madrid who made the “statement,” and that there is evidence to show that the southeast corner was properly located at a starting point, it nevertheless appears that the survey is incorrect and includes several acres of land to which the deeds did not give title. The judgment is therefore erroneous. Whether the testimony of Madrid is sufficient to render the surveyor’s hearsay testimony admissible is no longer controlling. What we said in the last paragraph of the foregoing opinion is withdrawn, and we express no opinion regarding that matter. The judgment will be reversed. The cause will be remanded, with a direction to render judgment that plaintiffs (appellees) take nothing by their complaint. It is so ordered. PARKER and' SIMMS, JJ, concur. BICKLEY, C. J., and CATRON, J., did not participate.