Court Opinion

ID: 9833311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:36:23.126158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.465937
License: Public Domain

On Motion by Appellant for Rehearing.
There is a fact misstated in the opinion which we shall correct, using the plat attached hereto for illustration.

The plat shows the bed of the, river since the change of its course in 1857. We were mistaken in stating that “it appears from the testimony that the town as incorporated in 1871 * * * afterwards located its west line as being where the river then and now runs, subdivided its lands to that boundary and no further west, and sold same up to that time.” The fact is that the meandering line to the west of the above was the line, or dry bed of the river, up to which the town subdivided and sold its lands, and up to which the state of Texas on the east and the republic of Mexico on the west exercised authority. The parcel of land in dotted lines on the plat represents the tract in controversy, consisting of about 300 acres. Where the dotted line runs is also a dry bed of the river, and is where the Boundary Commission has fixed and monu-mented the true boundary line between the republics. What is stated in the opinion by way of conclusions applies equally to the fact as above set forth.
The patent describes the western boundary of the land as running from a point which was several miles south on the river from the land in question, “thence up said Rio Grande to the place of beginning,” which was several miles north of it. This patent was issued conformably to the legislative confirmation of a grant to San Elizario by the Spanish government.
Appellant contends that the bed of the river as it ran in 1853 when the patent issued, if it can be identified, constitutes the western boundary of the land, and that, having introduced testimony which tended to show that the dry bed up to which the town afterwards subdivided and sold its land was in fact the then course of the river, the question should have been submitted to the jury.
We are of opinion that, if it be conceded that the river so ran in 1853, the state by its confirmation and patent intended to part with all land it had up to the Rio Grande river as said river constituted its boundary. The patent would leave no room for construction in this respect if it had called for “the Rio Grande river as it now runs.” The Boundary Commission determined that the river as called for in the treaty (1848) was at this point in the dry- bed on the west side of this tract, and shown by dotted line on the plat. This was the Rio Grande which was then and in 1853 the state boundary. It would be unreasonable under the circumstances to hold that the state contemplated any other than the river as it formed said boundary. We think the patent gave the town of San Elizario all the land to the Rio Grande river as that river constituted the state’s boundary. We desire to add that it was not our intention to hold that the admission by defendants that there was no outstanding title in the state was an admission that the tract in question was embraced in the patent, nor that said admission' affected defendant’s right to have plaintiff show title from the state in himself.
The main opinion, considered with the corrections and the remarks' herein, embodies our views concerning the rights of the parties with reference to this land.
The motion is overruled.