Court Opinion

ID: 9775067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:42:32.779643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:19.803583
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We recognize the doctrine extensively discussed in Stover v. Gilbert, 112 Tex. 429, 247 S.W. 841, 844, that meander lines, as a rule, relate to the sinuosities and course of a stream and do not constitute boundaries. This is so, says the Court, “in the absence of proof to clearly indicate a contrary intention * * 11 C.J.S., Boundaries, § 30, pages 573, 574. Here, as is evident from the testimony of Mr. Forrest (see footnote 2, original opinion), his survey was of “the top bank of the river”; establishing on the ground “a series of lines or meanders, as they are called, which would follow the high bank of the Trinity River; and wherever a bend in the river occurred there, an angle point would be established on these meander lines.” In other words, that the meander lines of the Forrest Survey and River bank meanders were coincidental.
And conclusive of the foregoing statement is intervenor’s exhibit 1, drawn by this witness at the trial, marking with a red “X” the point where the high or cut bank of old channel levels off to the valley terrain. Mr. Forrest further testified to an identity of survey lines with actual river meanders as follows: “Q. Now, using the sketch that you drew here, would you indicate where the meander line that would (was) run in the 1926 survey, of which you have testified you are familiar — where that meander line was placed with regard to the banks and bed of the stream, with respect to the typical cross section which is State’s Exhibit No. 1. Indicate that with a red ‘X’ on each side. A. The relationship he-*859tween- the meander line, which I shall mark on this, is generally the same as the place where the high bank breaks .off into the channel section of the river. (Emphasis ours.) And the purpose of the meander line was to outline in general .the point where the high bank of the. channel leveled off with the valley floor of the Trinity River valley. So the points you see marked in red ‘X’ on this exhibit refer to the relative difference in elevation, rather than specifically whether it was at that point or whether 1 foot or 5 feet one way or the other.”
It was in view of the above undisputed state of the record that we were persuaded to the conclusion already stated: “It is thus seen that the identified field notes of a senior survey mark the west meander line or high bank of the Trinity River channel as it stood in 1926. In effect, it replaces for all time the old bank location, thereby assuming the highest possible dignity as an artificial object or marked line.”
The following statement of above opinion holding, at least inferentially, that ap-pellee Districts were subject to the statutory bar of limitation, is unnecessary to any of the points raised by appellants and is withdrawn: That, -“were it not the State of Texas the party'that here asserts its title to the disputed area, appellants could safely interpose the Ten-year bar of limitation, which of course they do not urge.”
Motion for rehearing, after full consideration, is in all respects overruled.