Court Opinion

ID: 9829616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:28:34.662631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.404622
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant seems to be in some confusion as to our directions as to the method of locating sections 1326 and 1328. To be specific, the northeast corner of section 1313 should be located at the intersection of a line run south from the Cobb corner with a line run west from comer E, and surveys 1326 and 1328 should be located from this position of section 1313 by true course and distance according to the calls of their field notes and those of the ■ intervening surveys back to said section 1313. These specific instructions are given on the theory that the field notes of the surveys of 1877 would by their calls locate the northeast corner of section 1313 south of the Cobb comer. As we stated in the original opinion, the field notes of all intervening surveys back to - the Oobb corner do not appear in the record, so that our assumption that such field notes would so locate the northeast corner of 1313 with reference to the Cobb corner is based on the maps in evidence and general' inferences to be drawn from the record. If this assumption should be proven to be erroneous, then the east and west position of said northeast corner of said section 1313 would be shifted according to the distance east or west of the line run south from the Cobb corner that it should be located according to the calls of its field notes and those of the intervening surveys, tying back to the said Cobb comer.
Lest we be misunderstood, we wish to say again that we do not adopt the plat attached to the opinion as being correct in all particulars. That part of the map which shows a separation of the surveys made in 1877, beginning with sections 1212 and 1218, and thence westward, is at variance with all other maps in evidence and theories as to the construction of the surveys, and we do not wish to be understood as approving such location of those lands. Our opinion has been written on the assumption that there is no such break in the construction of those surveys.
We have on original hearing duly considered all. the suggestions made by the appellee in his motion for rehearing and no good purpose would be served by again reviewing them, as we believe that we have announced the proper method of locating the surveys in question according to the record presented to us.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.