Court Opinion

ID: 9774130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:09:33.817616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:02.623049
License: Public Domain

On Motion For Rehearing.
Appellants say we erred in stating that no formal dedicátion of the strip for street purposes was shown. They rely upon a deed of “designation” and an accompanying plat made in 1911 by A. J. Wise and J. L. Burleson to- the public dedicating streets, avenues and alleys shown on the attached plat of the “Wise-Burleson” Addition to Richland Springs. This plat does show “Church Street” to be located, where appellants contend the street to be.
There is no evidence other than that set out above to show a formal dedication of the strip in suit.
Opposing this is a survey made by W. S. Churnl, licensed land surveyor, in 1955.
He testified, without contradiction, that the strip in suit was not in the Wise-Burle-son Addition but was in the George Rae Addition and that from an examination of the deed records he found no street or space for a- street left where appellants claim it to be.
In their original brief áppellants, in- regard to the above, say: ■
“Resulting from the introduction in evidence of 'both plats there arose some confusion as to whether Church Street, the street which was closed by Ap-pellee and the cause of this suit, was in the Wise-Burleson or the other Addition.”
No further argument on this point was made nor did appellants complain of the refusal of the trial court to submit an issrte inquiring if a formal dedication of this strip had-been made.
We are unconvinced that our original opinion is erroneous and accordingly overrule appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.
Motion overruled.