Court Opinion

ID: 9832010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:32:32.101171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:41.090788
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We are of the opinion that appellee’s second assignment of error upon rehearing must he sustained. In our original opinion we stated that appellee’s defense was, in substance, that the lands sued for were in fact' within the--boundaries of a senior survey owned by appellee, to-wit, Survey No. 56S. 'We have'come to the conclusion that the above, statement is not strictly accurate insofar as the 44.9 acre tract out of Survey No. 884 is concerned,1 and that appellee was entitled to judgment for this tract even though it he assumed that it lies outside the boundaries of Survey No. 565.
Appellee, as defendant below, disclaimed as to the four tracts of land described in appellant’s petition, except as to the parts thereof which were included within three tracts, specifically described by metes and bounds in the answer,, to which appellee asserted title and prayed for a judgment of title and possession. The first tract therein described is all of Survey No. 565, the field notes of which, if construed in the manner contended for by appellee and rejected by this Court in our original opinion, would include all of the lands sued for by appellant as well as the remaining two tracts described in the answer. The second tract déscribed in the answer is the east 245-.65 acres of Survey No. 565 lying east of what is known as the Kelsey fence. This tract is described by metes and bounds calling'for artificial monuments and points in the- Kelsey fence. The third tract described in the answer is a 44.88 acre tract described as being out of Survey No. 884. The field notes of this tract, as set forth in the answer describe the same tract as the fourth parcel of land set forth in appellant’s petition. As to this tract, therefore, the appellant, as plaintiff below, assumed the burden of proving his title- and can not'rely upon the weakness of that of his adversary.1 Judgment was entered in favor of' the appellee upon this issue. Appellant’s claim of title to this tract under the'statute of limitations was decided adversely to him. -He does not by an appropriate point or assignment of error contend that he was entitled to judgment for this tract of land upon a showing of actual possession, under, the well settled rule announced in Bankston v. Fagan, Tex.Civ. App.,.64 S.W.2d 820, and other cases of similar import. Appellant did not show á title from the sovereignty of the soil, nor from a common source. He did introduce in evidence part of a judgment containing recitations to the effect that the court found that Domingo L. Garza (the appel-lee here) did not own the particular tract here involved but the same was owned by C. C. Bowman and G. A. Tanberg. Appellant also introduced in evidence another judgment wherein M. M. Garcia (appellant here) recovered the tract here involved from Eugene C. Bowman, E. W. Watts and the First National Bank of Harlingen. These two judgments were insufficient in themselves to establish title from a common source. Appellant introduced no further evidence upon this issue.
The appellee testified upon the stand that he claimed this particular tract as a part of Survey No. 565, “and if it’s not there, I don’t claim it.” This' statement is not an unequivocal statement of disclaimer. Appellee was actually giving the basis of his claim, and even if that basis be unfounded, his statement could not. be giv.en effect as a disclaimer under Article 7385, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., nor would it change the rule that a plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title. As to the nature of a disclaimer in a trespass to try title action, see Herring v. Swain, 84 Tex. 523, 19 S.W. 774.
■ W-e therefore conclude that there was no error in- the trial court’s judgment insofar as the lands in Survey No. 884 are concerned.
Appellee also suggests that the judgment should be affirmed as to the east 211 acres of Survey No. 565. It is asserted that the field notes of said tract set out in appellant’s petition definitely locate said piece of land within Survey No. 565 owned by appellee. It appears probable that appellee is correct in his contention as' to the actual location of this tract upon the ground. The" description employed refers to and calls for an apparently well recognized artificial monument known as the “Kelsey fence.” However, as we can not now determine the correct boundary lines of Surveys Nos. 565 and 566, nor the common line between them, if such there be, and as the cause must be remanded for the purpose *303bf determining said boundaries, we believe it expedient and advisable to remand the1 cause as to Survey No. 565 in its entirety.
There is no merit in appellee’s contention, raised for the first time on. motion for rehearing, that there is a fatal, variance between the allegations of the petition and the proof insofar as- Survey No. 566 is concerned. It does appear that there was a call omitted from the field notes of the patent as shown by the statement of facts. However, the original field notes of the survey, together with the surveyor’s certificate thereto, were admitted in evidence without objection. While a dif- . ferent beginning point is designated in the field notes of the petition from the one employed in the original notes, the same tract of land is described.
The only issue left in the case is the true location of Surveys Nos. 565 and 566. All issues of adverse possession are disposed of. It appears that appellee is the owner of the senior survey, No. 565, and appellant the owner of the junior survey, No. 566. In view of another trial of this issue, we discuss briefly the point raised in the briefs concerning the burden of proof in cases of supposedly conflicting surveys. There is no presumption of conflict, that is, one who exhibits a title to a survey from the sovereignty or from a common source may recover without going further and showing that the surrounding surveys are junior to the one he claims, or,, if they be senior, that there is no conflict between his survey and said adjoining senior surveys. When, however, evidence is submitted tending to show a conflict be-, tween a senior and a junior survey, the bur-, den of proof as to the boundary issue thus raised rests upon him who claims under the junior survey. Howell v. Ellis, Tex.Civ. App., 201 S.W. 1022; Childress County Land & Cattle Co. v. Baker, 23 Tex.Civ.App. 451, 56 S.W. 756; 341 Tex.Jur. 281, § 202.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted in part and in part overruled. Our original order disposing of this appeal is modified so as to provide as follows:
That, part of .the judgment of the trial court awarding to appellant title and possession of certain lands described as being located in Survey No. 918 is affirmed, as' is that part of the judgment awarding to appellee title and possession of the 44.9 acres out of Survey No. 884.
The remaining portion of the judgment (relating to Surveys Nos. 565- and 566) is reversed and the cause remanded for the purpose only of determining the boundary issues involved. The trial court is directed to determine whether or not there is a conflict between said surveys, and if such a conflict be found, then to determine the true boundary lines of said surveys. The trial court is further directed, after ascertaining the matters hereinabove. set forth, to enter judgment for appellee for all lands within the boundaries of the senior survey No; 565, and to .enter judgment for appellant for all lands within the boundaries of- Survey No. 566, excepting such part of said survey as may also lie within the boundaries of the senior survey No. 565, in case a conflict be found.