Court Opinion

ID: 9832603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:01:54.274766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:48.864751
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
As stated in our original opinion, appellees filed no brief in this court, and, following section 39 of Rules for the Courts of Civil Appeals, we accepted as correct the presentation of the case as made by appellants, without a thorough examination of the record, and reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment for appellants.
Appellees have file,d their motion for a rehearing, and thereby call our attention to the fact that this cause was advanced, upoja the motion of appellants, and set for submission on December 2, 1926; that, after such setting, appellants filed their briefs on Saturday, the 27th day of November, 1926, just five days before the cause was submitted. Under such circumstances, they say that they did not have time to file briefs in answer to appellants’ brief before the cause was submitted, and insist that we should have examined the record in deciding the appeal and should not have wholly relied upon the presentation of the case as made by appellants in reaching our decision; that an examination of. the record and statement of facts will disclose that appellants in their brief have not fairly and correctly stated the facts proven.
We agree with appellees that under the showing made we should look to the entire record for the facts upon which our decision should rest.
We have, .therefore, since the filing of the motion for rehearing, examined the record and statement of facts, and find that the findings made by us in the original opinion are substantially correct. The undisputed evidence shows that appellees’''inclosure extended to Dickson street and inclosed both the 12-acre tract and the 146-aere tract. Ap-pellees admit their fence inclosed both tracts, but they dispute our finding that both tracts were one inclosure, and say that the, 12-acre tract was separated from the 146-aere tract by a fence, but that such fence was down.
It is further insisted by appellees in their motion, that we erred in holding that the description of the strip of land as made in the petition- for condemnation and in the judgment of condemnation included a part of the 12-acre tract, the south boundary of which was the same as the north line of Dickson street in the city of Navasota.
Such contention is not sustained by the record. Both the petition and the judgment of condemnation described the land sought to be condemned as being a strip of land lying 40 feet on each side of a line beginning at county engineer’s station No. 653 — 96, which is shown by the undisputed evidence to be on the north line of Dickson Street; to run thence northwesterly to county engineer’s station No. 672 — 22. Can any one reasonably contend that the' land so described could not be easily and readily located alone by such description? We think not, for certainly, if one should begin at the first station called for and run a line to the second station called for, such line would run through the 12-acre tract from south to north, as well as through the 146-acre tract. There is, we think, no escape from the con ’ elusion that the land sought to be condemned was so accurately described ás to enable any one to locate it on the ground.
We have reached the conclusion that we correctly decided the issues, presented, and that the motion should be overruled.
Overruled.