Court Opinion

ID: 9655005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:57:32.550972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:15.431927
License: Public Domain

MURRAY, Chief Justice
(dissenting),
I do not concur.
It is my opinion that the rule of “Stare Decisis” compelled the trial court to recognize a riparian right to irrigate land in Texas, patented before 1889, and that such general rule applies to lands granted by the Kingdom of Spain or by the Republic of Mexico (or any of her States). This, in my opinion, is what in substance was decided by the Supreme Court of this State, speaking through Chief Justice Cureton, in Motl v. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82, 286 S.W. 458, opinion dated June 26, 1926.
The Austin Court of Civil Appeals, speaking through Associate Justice Brady, in Boyd v. Motl, 236 S.W. 487, opinion dated January 11, 1922, laid down the general rule that all lands bordering navigable streams in this State, patented by the State of Texas prior to the Appropriation Act of 1889 (Chapter 88, 21st Legislature), were •invested with riparian irrigation rights, which were property rights that could not be taken away except by a condemnation or the payment of compensation. It will be noticed that in the Court of Civil Appeals the single law firm of Blanks, Collins & Jackson of San Angelo, represented the appellants, and Hill & Hill of the same City, represented the appellees, but in the Supreme Court we find in addition to Hill & Hill, four law firms: Gaines & Gaines, Seabury, George & Taylor, Andrews, Streetman, Logue & Mobley, and Hudson & Starley, were representing Motl, the plaintiff in error. “The following attorneys filed briefs and arguments on questions here, involved as amici curiae by permission of the court, and on behalf of various clients whose interests would be affected by the decision: Seay, Malone & Lipscomb, and D. W. Glasscock; C. R. Wharton; J. E. Starley; John M. Corbett; Crate Dalton; Lindsley M. Brown; J. A. Drane and Palmer & Russell; and Clay Cooke.” Page 92, Vol. 116, Texas Supreme Court Reporter.
There can be no question but that the case of Motl v. Boyd took on a statewide aspect in the Supreme Court and became of general interest throughout the State. It is further apparent that these lawyers scented the far-reaching effect of the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, and attempted to have the decision reversed entirely, or to have the Supreme Court except from the holding, lands included in Spanish and Mexican grants made prior to the adoption by Texas of the common-law rules of construction of England in 1840. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals, and refused to exempt Spanish and Mexican grants from its far-reaching effect.
Chief Justice Cureton, speaking for the Supreme Court in Motl v. Boyd, 286 S.W. 458, devoted the first eight columns of his opinion to a discussion of the history of the Mexican law and its control and influence on early grants in Texas, and came to the conclusion that lands contained in early Spanish and Mexican grants were invested with riparian irrigation rights the same as other lands in Texas. In the course of his opinion, Chief Justice Cureton, in speaking of the rights of appropriators against those of riparians, said:
“This course is insisted on with so much force and so earnestly that we have concluded to investigate the whole subject for the purpose, if we can, of ascertaining the rule applicable in this state, and of harmonizing our statutes and decisions and setting at rest, in so far as we can, the question involved.”
There can be no doubt that Chief Justice Cureton seriously intended to lay down the law governing the rights of all landowners to use water from navigable streams *883and rivers in Texas, whether or not such lands were originally within Spanish or Mexican grants, and that such was the intention of the other members of the Supreme Court, as apparently they all concurred. And, further, there can be no doubt that the bench and bar of this State accepted such law as settled, and followed it up to the present time.
In Shepard’s Texas Citations, Case Edition, 1949, Motl v. Boyd is shown to have been cited some forty-six times by Texas Courts, and eleven times in Law Review Articles, and three times in American Law Reports. Some of the cases are as follows: Miller v. Letzerich, 121 Tex. 248, 49 S.W.2d 404, 85 A.L.R. 451; Texas Co. v. Burkett, 117 Tex. 16, 296 S.W. 273, 54 A.L.R. 1397; Manry v. Robison, 122 Tex. 213, 56 S.W.2d 438; Diversion Lake Club v. Heath, Tex.Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 566, 570, 571, affirmed 126 Tex. 129, 86 S.W.2d 441; State v. R. E. Janes Gravel Co., Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 739, 742. In Shepard’s Texas Citations, Supplement 1949-1955, to Case Edition, 1949, Motl v. Boyd is shown to have been cited by Texas Courts some fifteen times, and in Law Review articles some ten times; and again in Shepard’s Texas Citations, February, 1961, paper-back booklet, Motl v. Boyd is shown to have been cited in seventeen cases and eight Law Review articles. Certainly, Motl v. Boyd is one of the celebrated cases rendered by our Supreme Court and should not lightly be disregarded. Some of the most recent cases citing Motl v. Boyd are: Heard v. Town of Refugio, 129 Tex. 349, 103 S.W.2d 728; State v. Heard, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 191, affirmed Heard v. State, 146 Tex. 139, 204 S.W.2d 344; Greenman v. City of Fort Worth, Tex.Civ.App., 308 S.W.2d 553, wr. ref. n. r. e.; Great American Development Co. v. Smith, 303 S.W.2d 861, no writ history; Mitchell v. Town of Refugio, Tex. Civ.App., 265 S.W.2d 261, wr. Ref.
In 21 C.J.S. Courts § 197, p. 343, it is stated:
“Decisions of a court of last resort are to be regarded as law and should be followed by inferior courts, whatever the view of the latter may be as to their correctness, until they have been reversed or overruled, * *
The majority have refused to follow the language found in Motl v. Boyd, covering Mexican and Spanish land grants, and have declared such language to be “obiter dictum”.
If such language is dicta at all, it is judicial dicta and should be followed by this Court, and should be controlling in the disposition of the case at bar.
Judicial dicta is to be distinguished from mere obiter dicta. 14 Am.Jur., Courts, § 83, pp. 297-298; Deramus v. Thornton, Tex., 333 S.W.2d 824; Parker v. Bailey, Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 1033; Thomas v. Meyer, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d 681.
The holdings made in Motl v. Boyd, supra, by the Supreme Court, undoubtedly have established a rule of property in this State. No doubt a great deal of land has been purchased and sold relying upon such rule of property, and the same should not at this late date be set aside and disregarded as being mere “obiter dicta”, and especially it should not be done by a Court of Civil Appeals.
In 11 Tex.Jur., § 96, p. 839, under subject Stare Decisis, it is stated as follows:
“Particularly does the doctrine of stare decisis apply when a rule has been once deliberately declared and uniformly followed; in such case it will not be abandoned except upon the most urgent reasons.”
And in § 97, p. 841, it is further stated:
“ * * * Thus the decisions of the Supreme Court upon land titles become a rule of property and as such are binding upon all courts in which title may be drawn in litigation.”
Smith v. Power, 23 Tex. 29, 32. In Mayman v. Reviere, 47 Tex. 357, Justice Gould, speaking for the Supreme Court, said:
*884“In Terry v. Terry[’s Estate, 39 Tex. 313], supra, it was held by our predecessors, construing' this law, that the surviving widow is ‘entitled to an allowance in lieu of a homestead, and also in lieu of such personal property exempt by law from forced sale, as her husband did not leave her at the time of his death, and under article 5487 so much of the property as is required to make good these allowances, is not otherwise subject to administration.’ Whatever difficulty we might have had in arriving originally at these conclusions, it is reasonable to assume that the decision in Terry v. Terry was followed by the District Courts throughout the State; and the injurious effects which would probably result from a contrary construction at this late day constitute a sufficient reason why we should treat the question as settled.”
In Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Beckley, 93 Tex. 267, 54 S.W. 1027, 1030, Justice Brown, speaking for the Supreme Court, said:
“The counsel for appellees vigorously attack the. doctrine that the express retention of a lien in the deed or note for the purchase money makes the deed executory. The rule has been too long established, and has become the basis of too many property rights for the courts to overturn it. It is a rule to which persons may conform, and with which the profession are familiar. The Legislature must deal with this question, if it is to be changed.”
In Southland Royalty Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 151 Tex. 324, 249 S.W.2d 914, 916, Justice Calvert, speaking for the Supreme Court, said:
“It may be noted here that respondents suggest a re-examination of the Parker [Parker v. Parker, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 303] and George [French v. George, Tex.Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 566] cases on the theory that the courts should not attribute to lessors jointly executing a general form lease, without more, an intent to pool or unitize their properties; that the language of the general form lease was never intended to effect or to operate as a pooling agreement. This argument is not entirely unappealing. The Texas rule in this respect is not of universal application. See 116 A.L.R. 1267, et seq. On the other hand, the law of the Parker and George cases have now become a rule of property in this state and ‘should not be changed in the absence of other controlling circumstances, even though good reasons might be given for a different holding.’ Tanton et ux. v. State National Bank of El Paso et al., 125 Texas 16, 79 S.W.2d 833, 834 [97 A.L.R. 1093].”
In Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co. v. Hightower, 140 Tex. 200, 166 S.W.2d 681, 683, 143 A.L.R. 1366, reversing Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 940, the Commission of Appeals of Texas, speaking through Commissioner Hickman, said:
“Whether or not the rule is subject to the criticism leveled at it will not be considered here. It has been the established rule in this state for many years, recognized by textwriters and courts and should not now be changed by judicial decree.”
In Mitchell v. Town of Refugio, 265 S.W.2d 261, 267, error refused, Justice Norvell, speaking for this Court, said:
“As to historical facts, there is an instance where the Supreme Court of the United States modified a rule of law theretofore declared when the results of an historical study of the jurisdiction of the English Chancery Courts in the time of Queen Elizabeth were brought to its attention. Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 2 How. 127, 11 L.Ed. 205, and Baptist Association v. Hart’s Executors, 4 Wheat. 1, 4 L.Ed. 499. *885This was an instance of a re-examination of its previous holding by a court of final jurisdiction. No doubt other examples may be found in the books. Historical facts are commonly brought to light and the practical, as distinguished from the theoretical, field of judicial knowledge may be enlarged and call for a re-examination of judicial holdings. However, if property rights be involved and a rule declared by the Supreme Court be directly applicable, such rule should be followed by inferior courts in the absence of extraordinary and unusual circumstances. The trial court based its judgment upon this principle and we believe correctly so. Appellants’ theory is essentially another argument why it should be held that title to the river bed passed to the Town of Refugio under and by virtue of legislative enactments prior to 1850. It may be supported by additional historical information not heretofore considered, but if the holding that title did not pass to the town until 1929 is to be changed, such change must be effected by the court that made the holding. For appellants to prevail, the Heard decisions must be overruled and such action lies beyond the authority of this Court.”
In Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323, 198 S.W.2d 424, 442, Justice Slatton, speaking for the Supreme Court, said:
“Since the Century and Gulf-Atlantic cases were decided so many years ago and many property rights have no doubt been acquired under them, we should not at this late day change them, even though doubt as to their correctness may exist in the minds of some lawyers and judges.”
There are other issues in the case, but as I have taken an entirely different approach from that of the majority I can see no purpose in discussing such issues in this dissenting opinion.
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority.
MURRAY, Chief Justice, and BARROW, Justice.
This cause was filed in this Court on November 30, 1959. A question arose as to the qualification of Associate Justice POPE to sit in the case in view of the fact that he owned an undivided interest in lands within the grants involved herein abutting on the Rio Grande River, and other land within the grants that does not abut on said river. Neither Justice POPE nor any of his relatives are named as parties to this cause and the question arises only by reason of the fact that this is a class action.
On August 29, 1960, letters were written to all of the attorneys connected with this case, explaining to them the situation with regard to Justice POPE. No motion to disqualify Justice POPE was filed. Before the cause was argued, Justice POPE and the members of his family sold these lands. Members of Justice POPE’S family still own vendor’s lien notes against the land, but he has disposed of his interest in the vendor’s liens.
When the case was called for oral argument, the Chief Justice again called this matter to the attention of the attorneys in the case and again gave them an opportunity to discuss the matter, to ask any questions, and to make any motions they might care to make. The consensus of opinion seemed to be that Justice POPE was not disqualified to sit in this case. Justice POPE has asked his associates to pass upon this matter.
We have carefully and fully considered the matter and have come to the conclusion that Justice POPE is not only not disqualified to sit in this case, but it is his duty to do so. We regard the law so well settled on this question that a discussion is unnecessary. See, Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. Blalock, 157 *886Tex. 201, 301 S.W.2d 593; Elliott v. Scott, 119 Tex. 94, 25 S.W.2d 150; Winston v. Masterson, 87 Tex. 200, 27 S.W. 768; Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Davidson, Tex.Civ.App., 290 S.W. 871; City of Dallas v. Armour & Co., Tex.Civ.App., 216 S.W. 222; New Odorless Sewerage Co. v. Wisdom, 30 Tex.Civ.App. 224, 70 S.W. 354.