Court Opinion

ID: 9833291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:35:33.187745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.269685
License: Public Domain

*1000On Motion for Rehearing.
The statement in our opinion on original hearing to the effect that the Juana Salinas survey was partitioned among several owners was not strictly accurate. Tinsley and Walker, former owners of that survey, made a settlement with numerous squatters who had settled on the land and were claiming title thereto by limitation, and in the settlement certain tracts claimed by the different squatters were set apart to them, Dabney and ‘Bearden being among those claimants, and the tracts so set apart to them were the tracts referred to in the original opinion.
The oil and gas lease under which plaintiffs claim was executed by Mrsj Lizzie Queen and her husband to L. 0. Turman, on November 20, 1918, as stated in our original opinion. In that connection we said that the execution of that lease was prior to the decree of partition by the Bearden heirs. It is insisted that that conclusion was erroneous. We will say now that the decree of partition bore the same date as the lease. But we fail to perceive how the fact that the lease was contemporaneous with the decree could have any material bearing upon our former conclusion. And the same observation applies to the further fact called to our attention in the motion for rehearing that the partition fence between the Dabney tract and the Bearden tract was not built until after Bearden’s death; the fact being that the fence was acquiesced in by the Bearden heirs and owners of the Dabney tract as marking the correct division line between the two tracts.
[5] At the time of the partition between the Bearden heirs it was supposed that 15 acres was the extent of Mrs. Lizzie Queen’s interest in the survey, and that the extent of interest owned by the other heirs was, as shown in the plat appearing in our original opinion; in other words, it was not supposed that there was any excess in the tract over and above the aggregate of the several interests estimated to be owned by each claimant, as shown in the plat. The field notes of the several tracts were given in the decree of partition, and they should be given controlling effect over the estimates so made; and we will add that they were intended to be made contiguous to each other.
[6] Nor do we think that the fact that the lease in controversy under which appellees claimed was procured and paid for upon the supposition that it contained only 15 acres instead of 15.56 acres should be given controlling effect in determining the north boundary of that tract, ^contrary to the boundary fixed by the decree of partition.
With the corrections above noted, the motion for rehearing and also the motion to certify will be overruled.