Court Opinion

ID: 9827929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:56:19.942187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:39.405054
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing, appellants assert, among other things, that the record does not support our statement that Williams who ran out the south line of the Steele in 1899 found the west corner of the T. & N. O. survey No. 4. In this they are correct, and this statement in our opinion is corrected accordingly. Williams testified that he did not find such corner as established, if it was so established, by Wade in 1861. This, however, was but one of the circumstances considered by us, as indicating that Williams correctly located the south line of the Steele, and without it, our conclusion from the other evidence that he did so is the same.
Our attention is also called to the statement that the tree bearing marks estimated at from 62 to 70 years old was one of the bearing trees at the S. W. corner of the Bricker. The tree in question, how*947ever, was not at the S. W. corner of the Bricker as located by appellees, but on the west line of the Bricker as so located, some distance north of such S. W. corner. The probative value of such marking, therefore, whatever it may be, must be limited as indicating a line tree, and not as a mark for a corner. This correction is also made in the interest of accuracy.
Appellants also insist that Wade did not run the south line of the Steele survey, but that same was run out by Rankin in 1838. Undoubtedly Rankin did run out this line when he surveyed the Steele. The inference is inescapable, however, that Wade must have likewise run out this line, at least from the river corner, when he surveyed the Bricker and located its corner by bearing trees on the ground on this line.
Appellants’ motion is granted to the extent above indicated. In all other respects it is overruled.
Granted in part and in part overruled.