Court Opinion

ID: 9832804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:12:58.388872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:53.097595
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing.
[4] Prom findings of the trial court it appears that there was a notation, in pencil on the field notes of the Mason survey made May 24, 1861, as follows: “Does not close — error north 20 varas, error west 47 varas. October 8, 1861.” It is insisted that it therefore appeared that the survey was not then a valid one, and hence that the conclusion of the trial court that the statute of limitations of ten years did not begin to run in appellant’s favor until the survey was corrected by the field notes made November 30, 1910, was correct, because within the rule announced in Von Rosenberg v. Cuellar, 80 Tex. 249, 16 S. W. 58. But we think the fact that the survey may not have closed according to a calculation made of distances called for in its field notes would not have rendered it inr valid. The calls were for objeetsi specified as on the ground at distances indicated. If the objects would not have been reached at the distances called for, the survey would not for that reason have been invalid; but the distances called for would have been extended so as to reach the objects and so close the survey.
The motion is overruled.