Court Opinion

ID: 9834314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:28:43.029261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.710794
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 Appellees, in their motion for rehearing, assert that we erred in seeming to “regard Talley’s meander lines (of Shes-ton No. 2) as his boundary lines.” As we understand it, a meander line is subject to the same rule of construction applicable to any other kind of a boundary line. A meander line generally contains a call for a natural object or monument which under the well recognized rule will usually control over calls for course and distance. This general rule, is however, applicable to all lines sought to be established by field notes containing calls for either natural or artificial objects. St. Clair County v. Lovingston, 90 U.S. 46, 23 L.Ed. 59; State v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co., Tex.Civ.App. (writ refused) 110 S.W.2d 953.
The natural object called for by Talley’s meander line of Sheston No. 2 is the “bluff bank.” The point at which Talley’s meandering begins (insofar as Sheston No. 2 is concerned) is the Southeast corner of Sheston No. 1 and the Southwest corner of Sheston No. 2. No one contends that this point is on the shore of Nueces Bay. The call to the “bluff bank” can not therefore be construed as have certain calls to a “river bank” in surveys which have been examined by the courts in numerous reported cases. For example, see Burkett v. Chestnutt, Tex.Civ.App., 212 S.W. 271. The field notes of Sheston No. 1, for instance, preclude the adoption of the view that by a call to the “bluff bank,” Talley intended to place that survey or the southeast corner thereof on Nueces Bay.
Coming now to a consideration of Talley’s course and distance call immediately preceding his stated location of the southeast corner of Sheston No. 2, which is south 273 varas, it seems reasonably clear that we would be justified in varying this course and distance call only upon proper proof *510that a natural object called for by Talley’s notes demanded that this be done. Such proof is not contained in the record. Further, the call to a natural object is a call to the “bluff bank,” and we fail to see how the recognition of a call to this natural object aids appellees’ contention that a part of Sheston No. 2 is riparian to Nueces Bay. We find no fact situation disclosed by the record here which would warrant the presumption or inference that because the southwest corner of Bell No. 3 is on Nueces Bay, a point, either 273 varas north of the corner, or on the bluff bank somewhere in the vicinity of 273 varas north of the corner, is also on the bay shore.
In our opinion, Talley’s field notes do not place Sheston No. 2 on the bay shore, and these field notes are controlling of the matter.
Further discussion is deemed unnecessary. We adhere to the holdings expressed in the original opinion. Appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled. We also overrule the motion for rehearing filed herein by appellants.