Court Opinion

ID: 9828943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:52:35.593516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:55.285966
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Amongst other contentions made in this motion for new trial, appellees urge that this court erred, and is in conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Civil Appeals, in holding that the rock pile in front of Clawson’s house, established by Grooms Tee, fixes the lower N. E. corner of the 350-acre tract, whether such rock pile is on the north line of the Bayard survey or not. In this we are of the opinion upon further investigation of the authorities that appellees are correct. The field notes of the deed do not call for the rock pile as a corner but for a point on the north line of the Bayard survey 74 varas from its northwest corner. Objects not called for in the deed cannot be looked to as corners, if in conflict with the field notes. Reast v. Donald, 84 Tex. 653, 19 S. W. 795; Hamilton v. Blackburn, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 153, 95 S. W. 1094; Ratliff v. Burleson, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 621, 25 S. W. 983, 26 S. W. 1003; Davis v. George, 104 Tex. 110, 134 S. W. 326. That being true, the true north line of the Bayard survey, wherever located, will control the location of the lower northeast corner of Clawson’s 350-acre tract, and a line run from a point thereon 74 varas from its northwest corner south 30 west to a point where same intersects the line fixed in our original opinion for the south line of said 350-acre tract will establish the east line' and the southeast corner of said 350-acre tract. The south line and west line of said tract being conclusively fixed, such survey should be constructed upon these lines, and closed by connecting same with the corners of the surveys called for in the field notes.
There was ample evidence to show that said rock pile was on the north line of the Bayard survey, but it was not conclusive, and this location then remains an issue of fact for determination, In the respect here indicated, appellees’ motion for a new trial is granted, and our opinion corrected accordingly. In all other respects said motion is overruled.
Motion granted in part and in part overruled.