Court Opinion

ID: 9830705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:24:18.599443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:48.536597
License: Public Domain

Motion for Rehearing.
W.e are asked in appellants’ motion for a rehearing to make more specific the location of the southeast corner of league No. 9 and the northeast corner of league No. 6.
In the original opinion we use the following language in locating the boundaries of league No. 9:
“Extending the north line of the Philip Miller across the river to the west bank of Trinity river, where such line intersects the river at its most westerly point, we have the northeast or beginning; corner of Martinez No. 9, and thus do not disturb any of the land included in the field notes of the Philip Miller; from there to the west 10,088 varas, the second corner is reached; from there to the south 2,500 varas the third corner is reached; and from that point east 9,246 varas to the west bank of Horeskoe Lake, which we have heretofore determined was at the time of the making of such survey the west bank of Trinity river, the fourth corner was reached; and from there following the turns of the old river channel upward (in accordance with the meander calls of the Trinity river given in the Philip Miller field notes), until arriving .at the point of commencing, the league is constructed.”
We have heretofore specifically held that Horseshoe Lake was a part of the old Trinity river channel, and we mean to hold that when the south dine of No. 9, extending east-wardly from the southeast corner, intersects the west bank of Horseshoe Lake, that it shall then meander the northern boundary of said lake until it meets with the old channel of said river on the east side of said lake, and thence follow the turns of the old river channel upward (in accordance with meander calls of Trinity river given in the Philip Miller field notes), until arriving at the point of commencement.
We desire to say also that it is to be noted in the original opinion that the beginning point in running this survey is at the northeast corner, from which point course and distance must be measured. We are not to be understood as authorizing a reversal of the calls, and as designating the measurements to start from the intersection of the south line of said league, with the west hank of Horseshoe Lake.
In locating the boundaries of No. 6, we used the following language:
“As we have heretofore determined, the true Philip Miller southwest corner is at a point on the east side of Horesboe Lake, which iajre, at the time of the survey of the Philip Miller, was a part of the Trinity river. Therefore the beginning corner of the Martinez survey No. 6 is at a point on the west side on bank of Horseshoe Lake. This survey should then be constructed by running course and distance as follows: Thence west 10,609 varas, second corner. Prom there to the south 2,500 varas, third corner. Prom thence to the east parallel with the north line of said survey to the east bank of Trinity river. Thence following the turns of said river, as the same is now found on the ground, upward, until a point is reached on said river opposite a deep gully, which is a continuation of Horseshoe 1 Lake. Thence following the meanders of said gully and lake in a westerly, north, and northeasterly direction to the place of beginning.”
We mean to determine that the beginning or northeast corner of No. 6 is on the west bank of Horseshoe Lake, at a point on said lake that would be reached by the Philip Miller south line if it was extended through to that point. Thence west 10,609 varas, second corner. Thence to the south 2,500 varas, third corner. Prom thence to the east parallel with the north line of said survey to the east bank of Trinity river. Thence following the turns of said river, as the same is found on the ground, upward, until a point is reached on said river opposite a deep gully, which is a continuation of Horesboe Lake. This gully, according to the record, is well marked and defined on the ground, and runs up to within a short distance of the present west bank of the river. Prom said point on the river, thence in a westerly direction to a point that intersects the south side of said gully. Thence following the meanders of said gully along its south bank *969and along the south and west banks of Horseshoe Lake to the place of beginning.
In thus fixing the boundaries of the two Martinez surveys, there will remain some area of land in the three Shattue surveys, but we are unable to determine from the data at hand exactly how much territory will be included in said Shattue surveys or to fix and determine the exact metes and bounds of such surveys. We therefore cannot make the judgment in this respect more specific than was done in the original opinion.
Judgment, however, should be affirmatively rendered for appellants and against appel-lees for such land as may be included in the Shattue surveys, after locating the two Martinez surveys as herein determined, and the court below is instructed’ to ascertain the metes and bounds of said Shattue surveys, in accordance with this opinion, either by appointing a competent surveyor, or otherwise, and to include in the record of this judgment below the field notes of the same.
It is further ordered by the court that all the costs of this case incurred prior to the time the cause was transferred to the district court of Liberty county be paid by the appellants; and that all costs incurred in the district court of Liberty county and this court be apportioned as follows: Two-thirds against appellants, and one-third against ap-pellees. And in this apportionment, it is ordered that the costs incurred in serving the original citations upon appellees in this cause be included.
Appellants’ motion- for rehearing is, in all other respects, overruled.
On Motion to Reform Judgment.
On appellants’ motion to reform judgment, so as to fix the metes and bounds of that portion of the Shattue surveys allotted to appellants: Since overruling appellant’s motion for rehearing, the appellants have filed a motion to fix by metes and bounds that portion of the three Shattue surveys allotted by the court to them; and in this connection have called our attention to data found in the record, which will enable us to do so. Therefore the motion will be granted, the metes and bounds of said surveys fixed, as requested, and the original opinion modified accordingly.
In the original opinion, the north line of Martinez No. 9 was determined to extend 1,270 varas further west, measured from the northeast corner, as located by the court, than it would otherwise do, measured from the corner contended for by appellants. Therefore that distance, to wit, 1,270 varas, must be deducted from the length of the north and south lines of Shattue survey No. 62, as those lines were originally contended for by appellants. After making that deduction, appellants are entitled to recover the following portion of Shattue survey No. 62, to wit: Beginning at the northeast corner of survey No. 38, I. & G. N. Railway Company, at its northwest corner; thence east along its original north line 1,023 varas to its northeast corner; thence south 1,577.6 varas to its southeast corner; thence west 1,023 varas to the east line of survey No. 38,1. & G. N. Railway Company, its original southwest corner; thence north with the east line of said I. & G. N. Railway Company survey 1,577.6 varas to the place of beginning, containing 285.81 acres of land.
After fixing the lines of Martinez No. 9, as was done in said original opinion, appellants are entitled to recover that portion of Shat-tue survey No. 63 embraced in the following field notes, to wit: Beginning at the east line of survey No. 38, I. & G. N. Railway Company, at the original southwest corner of Shattue survey No. 62; thence east with the south line of Shattue survey No. 62 1,023 varas, the northeast corner of this tract and the southeast corner of that part of Shat-tue survey No. 62 awarded to appellants by this court; thence south 472 varas to the north line of Martinez No. 6, as established by this court; thence west with said north line 1,023 varas to an original interior corner of said Shattue survey No. 63; thence north to the place of beginning, containing 85.53 acres of land.
In the original opinion, the north line of Martinez No. 6 extends 1,805 varas further west, as located on the west bank of Horseshoe Lake, than it would do if measured from the intersection of said north line with the present location of Trinity river. Therefore the north and south lines of Shattue surveys Nos. 63 and 64, lying immediately adjacent to Martinez No. 6 on the west, must be lessened accordingly. Appellants are therefore entitled to recover that portion of Shattue survey No. 63 herein referred to, embraced within the following field notes: Beginning at one of the original northwest corners of Shattue survey No. 63, which is an interior corner of I. & G. N. Railway Company survey No. 39; thence east 395 varas to the northwest corner of Martinez league No. 6, as established by this court, for the northeast corner of this tract; thence south 1,150 varas to the southeast corner of this tract; thence west 395 varas to the original southwest corner of Shattue survey No. 63, on the east line of I. & G. N. Railway Company survey No. 39;. thence north 1,150 varas to the place of beginning, containing 80.46 acres of land.
Appellants are also entitled to recover that portion of Shattue survey No. 64, described as follows: Beginning at the original southwest corner of Shattue survey No.. 63, and the northwest corner of Shattue survey No. 64; thence east 395 varas to the northeast corner of this tract; thence south 1,279.5 varas to the southeast corner of this tract, being the southwest corner of Martinez No. 6, as established by this court; thence west 395 varas to the original southwest corner *970of Shattuc No. 64 on the east line of the James Dowell; thence north 1,279.5 varas with the east line of the Dowell and I. & G. N. survey No. 39, to the place of beginning, containing 89.56 acres of land.