Court Opinion

ID: 9829964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:45:27.784173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:09.424945
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The evidence in this case presents two theories: One is that the boundaries of the grant should be located by its call for a natural object at its northwest corner, and by the calls for the lands of the Rio Grande on the southwest. The other is that it should be located by its calls for course and distance from its undisputed corner at the intersection of the Mier jurisdiction line with the southwest line of the Sacatosa grant. The trial court decided in favor of the latter theory, and it is our duty to affirm the judgment of the court below, if it is sustained by reasonable and legal deductions from the evidence, even though, as an original proposition, we might have adopted the contrary theory.
However, for reasons set out in our original opinion herein, we think the. trial court adopted the eoi'reet theory. We will briefly restate our reasons for such conclusion:
1. If the call “a Uindo. de la Cabeza de la Canada del defto. Mig.” means “the head of the drain of the deceased Miguel,” such call was made upon an erroneous conjecture and should not control the call for course and distance.
2. “Cañada” means valley. Monroe, who made the survey for appellants, shows on his sketch that the Miguel drain begins just north of the northwest corner of the Pedernal, and crosses its northeast line about 3,000 vrs. to the southeast, and its southwest line on the northeast boundary of poreion No. 26. If by “cañada” Canales had meant drain, he probably would have shown same on his sketch, as he did other drains. If he made no actual sur-. vey, still he must have known that, if it was north of his line, it would run in a southerly direction toward the Rio Grande river, and tnus cross both the northeast and southwest lines of his survey as sketched by him.
[6] There is nothing in the record outside of the word itself to indicate what “cañada” means. On the contrary, for the reasons above stated, we think it does not mean drain.
Appellants insist that we ought to accept the translation of witnesses who understand the Spanish language. In not doing so we do not assume to have any superior knowledge of the Spanish language. “Cañada” is not a technical word, and therefore not the subject-of expert testimony. Any one, though having no knowledge of the Spanish language, can ascertain its meaning by consulting a Spanish-Elig-lish dictionary.
[7] 3. If the call for “the lands of the Rio Grande” moans that the back lines of the por-ciones form the southwest boundary of the Pe-dernal, this call must be rejected, for the reason that to adopt it we would have to disregard the calls for course and distance, quantity, and the configuration of the survey. Canales said the survey was a trapezoid. He certainly knew that a trapezoid was bounded by straight lines, and likewise he must have known that the back lines of river surveys, fronting on the same for njore than 12 miles, could not, in the nature of things, be a straight line, as indicated by his plat and his statement that the same was a trapezoid. Again, if the south corners of the Pedernal be placed at X and at Z (see sketch in opinion), as contended by appellants, a straight line from one to the other will conflict with a number of the porciones.
Believing that we have correctly decided this case, the motion for a rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.