Court Opinion

ID: 9834252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:26:52.839622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.271248
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[4] Plaintiffs in error advance the proposition that we are in error in concluding that the trial court found as a fact that the 15-acre tract was actually surveyed and the lines and corners marked on the ground. We have carefully examined the conclusions of fact filed by the trial court, and believe the proposition is well taken, and now say that the trial court made no separate finding on the issue of an actual survey. But the fact that the trial court made no such finding does not detract in the least from the conclusions reached by us in our original opinion. The issue was clearly raised by the evidence, and, if necessary to support the judgment as rendered, we will presume-that- the trial court resolved that issue in favor of defendants in error. Thomas v. Quarles, 64 Tex. 493; Malone v. Fisher (Tex. Civ. App.) 71 S. W. 996; National Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Warren (Tex. Civ. App.) 181 S. W. 790; Fitzhugh v. Land Co., 81 Tex. 306, 16 S., W. 1078; Schauer. v. Schauer (Tex. Civ. App.) 202 S. W. 1010; Drake v. Davidson, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 184, 66 S. W. 889; Cattle Co. v. Burns, 82 Tex. 58, 17 S. W. 1043.
In our original opinion we said:
“He (referring to the witness Cotton) further testified that he was with the surveyors when the lines of thé Taylor were originally
Here we referred to the Taylor tract when we should have referred to the Herrington.
We have given the motion for rehearing our most careful consideration, and have re-examined the testimony in the record, and are of the opinion that the case was correctly disposed of in our original opinion. The motion for rehearing is therefore in all things overruled.