Court Opinion

ID: 9829767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:36:18.336608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:05.906854
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[9,10] The appellant appears to base his case on the theory that the location of block 1, G., C. & S. F., is an office survey because Geo. Spiller signed the field notes, and is not shown to have been present when the block was run out. It makes no difference, as we conceive it, who signed the field notes, or rather certified to them. The testimony is not controverted that Hayes had charge of the surveying party who put in the surveys from May 12th up to May 24th. That party was' composed of Jasper Hayes, William Brannin, Enos L. Seeds, Z. T. Pennington, William Weeks, and a colored cook, Geo. Clark. All of the field notes of block 1, G., C. & S. F., were signed by Spiller as deputy surveyor, but the chainmen are Z. T. Pennington and William Weeks. Spiller simply certified the surveys were made according to law, not that he made the surveys himself. The field notes show, for instance, section 551, block 1, E. L. & R. R., was surveyed May 14, 1878, a day after block 1, G., C. & S. F., was surveyed. Brannin, as deputy surveyor, certified to these field notes, but the same chain carriers were in both sets of field notes, and in fact in most of the field notes of the two blocks, or at least a great many of them. Hayes ran the compass, but sometimes Pennington ran it. It is shown with reasonable certainty the two blocks were put in by the same surveying party at practically the same time. The calls and field notes tie the two blocks together and show no actual vacancy as claimed by appellant, and evidenced that it was the intention of the surveyor to tie them together. Appellant construes what we said as to the line of corners running north from Camp Branch nine miles as locative, not only o'f block 1, G., C. & S. F., but of section 1411. This line we held evidentiary or descriptive. Hayes ran that line, the evidence clearly indicates, and it is stated by Seeds “as our true meridian” and to locate the surveys west of it. Section 501, block 1, is west of that line and the beginning section of block 1, G., C. & S. F. We think the evidence simply shows that Hayes was mistaken as to the location of section 1411 and called for it by mistake, but it is conclusive that he was not mistaken as to the place he was then actually on the ground and where he put the marks. Two miles, or about that, east of the northeast corner of block 1, G., C. & S. F., Hayes put in marks that are identified on the ground. It is assumed by appellant, because no marks are now found at the northeast corner of block 1, Hayes was not at that point and never marked the point. The beginning call is at “Md. and 2 pits N. W. cor. of No. 1411.” This assumption is against the presumption of law, and the evidence in this case puts him in that neighborhood. It should be assumed rather that he did mark it and that the corner has since been destroyed or lost. This corner should, as we conceive it, be established by the work of the men who put in those blocks where it can be found, whether it should be called reversing the calls or not. If the mark was on the ground at the N. E. corner of the block at the time the survey was made, but now lost, certainly it can be found by reversing the calls from other known and established corners. It is asserted there is nothing to locate the northern line of block *4921, G., C. & S. F. The Double Lakes corner placed in a short time alter by part of the same surveying party of May, 1878, is established. A line projected east to the southeast corner of 1409 and southwest corner of 1407 as marked by Hayes for the then supposed corners of those two surveys on May 12th will fix the south line of the north tier of sections in block 1, G., C. & S. F., and a line projected west from the northeast and northwest corners of these surveys as marked by Hayes will fix the north line of these sections in the block. The evidence is these corners were fixed by Hayes to do the work then in contemplation, and it does not affect the question here that he was then mistaken as to the true location of those corners which he thought he was then marking. We think all this work should have preference in locating the western blocks over the calls for course and distance from a section in Garza county put in the year previous and through the connections of different surveys aincL for different owners, which are also shown in many respects to be inaccurate. But, if there was nothing to locate the land on the north that would not create a vacancy where appellant is claiming it, if these two blocks should be held together as one piece of work, as was evidently the purpose of the surveyor- as shown by the field notes and maps sent to the land office at that time and by the maps up until the year 1900. We think the trial court’s judgment is supported by the evidence that there was no vacancy as claimed by appellant. There are one or two inaccuracies in our statement of facts, as, for instance, we state that section 496 calls for the southwest corner of 516. The call in the field notes is for the south line of 516. But, as we conceive it, this will make no material difference in the conclusion that these blocks were tied and intended to be tied together •by the surveyor who made both blocks at the same time.
The appellant files a motion to certify the question of reversing the calls to establish the beginning corner. On this point we do not think we are in conflict with other decisions, as above pointed out, the evidence indicating that the block lines of these two blocks were actually surveyed on the ground, and the court would be justified in having so found. This court is agreed upon the affirmance of this case, with no dissent. There is therefore nothing to certify to the Slipreme Court. If there is a conflict, as .asserted, it is possible that a petition for writ of error would reach the trouble. If, however, this is not true, we think this case has been properly affirmed, and we see no reason for delaying the settlement of this controversy. Appellant appears to desire to obtain uniformity in boundary law. Each case decided rests upon its' own peculiar facts. While general rules of surveying have been formulated and to some calls greater dignity is given than to others, yet the lowest may be resorted to and adopted to arrive at the intention of the locator, and to establish the real location of the land. It is only at last a question of fact or evidence in boundary suits. The evidence in this case amply supports the judgment of the trial court. We therefore overrule the motion for rehearing and • to certify.