*1 (Tex. 193 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER abundantly appeared tes- from denee. 5756.) bought, (No. that, timony DUNN v. LAND. at the Miles time sides, alley and was was fenced on both its was (Court Appeals of Civil Antonio. of Texas. San 28, Rehearing, street, College open Feb. 1917. Motion for and On at its mouth on 21, 1917.) March by being as a Melton Bodenheim and used Judgment — — <@=>710 premises abutting way parts 1. their Evidence Parties Against Whom Admissible. Appellant he himself testified that it. try trespass In loca- title in which the bought he had “had mind on” the only issue, tion of a it was was the bought it, long ha'd a he and testify time before error to cation of the a lo- allow witness as to the map sup- be- on a quite shown “noticing “I it while.” fore the the the decision established pose said; alley,” “I I knew saw the Supreme ease, Court in another since buggies, being by wagons was or used parties testimony failure to introduce But, claiming go rights parties whatever in there.” case cannot other fendant cannot be want to affect rights de- in this case appear testi- even if it did not from his own fact affected did, testimony, mony, as it from or other meager testimony in a case be- was introduced appellant knew, as found 'the parties, fact, tween other or even had existed, alley in another on testi- case and about the use made the it, existed mony against not conclusive had found his con- we think the law would with tention. knowledge. Hagerbaumer, 98 Moll v. Judgment, cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see 560; Saving 555, & Neb. 153 N. W. German Dig. 1230.] Cent. § Society Gordon, 147, 54 Or. 102 Pac. Loan 736, Appeal — <@=>1050(1) 2. and Error Bound- (N. S.) L. In <@=>35(2) Evidence—Admissibility 26 R. A. the Moll Case aries — —Prejudicial Error. the court said: Evidence the line contended easement, open “If had an it was plaintiff ern recognized the west- and had been they purchased and visible to defendants when boundary Supreme since decision They charge- the servient estate. able with notice of were therefore case, and that the witness after such decision had made Court roadway plaintiff’s right, all the any.” surveys land certificates for locations state grant and the between the of another east line [5, contention, 6] Another and the oth prejudicial, plaintiff, contended to, er one will we refer is that the court excluded, since the deci- have been and should sion inadmissible, appellant’s objection affect erred when he itself overruled parties case, rights of the in this no Thompson set witness placed the witness or construction thereon out in the statement above. As we view it permitted go before the others should not be application directly indirectly. statute invoked no to jury or against cases, Appeal Bodenheim and Melton’s suit. It was Note.—For other see [Ed. Error, Boundaries, Dig. §§ Cent. appellant Miles, against and not Mor Mrs. Dig. 155.] §§ Cent. necessary row. She was neither nor a Admissibility — — <@=116 Ex- 3. Evidence proper party against to their suit Miles. planation op Map. They sought against her, no relief as map had made a on which Where witness surveys “state” been rendered in their alternate were marked by defendant, plain- introduced against favor capacity her in either her individual explain tiff the witness to the lines could ask capacity or her as administratrix of on his to show community surveys. her estate between and her was blanketed state husband, capacity cases, Evidence, [Ed. deceased her Note.—For as his see Dig. 135.] Cent. party heir. She was a to the suit in at the — Documentary <@=333(5) 4. Evidence Evi- appellant stance alone of Miles. He alone dence-Records. sought against relief as her. We do not Spanish of a certificate records in the by making party, think Miles her á as the language properly translated and shown original un- warrantor title he claimed to the claimed, der which defendant which stated the which Bodenheim and Melton assert point designated map, on a easement, ed an could render inadmissible not admissible. against admissible him had he not cases, Evidence, [Ed. Note.—For other see Dig. party. § 1253.] made her a that If it should be Cent. conceded testimony objected <@=471(27) Opinion tended to 5. Evidence Evidence —(cid:127) —Admissibility. show a breach of the covenant in the deed permitted testify aWhere witness was appellant, of Mrs. Morrow to and therefore occupancy pos- to the facts “against” meaning her within the properly land, the court session refused to posses- statute,, let him state his conclusion that such it seems us that she alone had a was exclusive. sion right urge objection interposed to its Evidence, Note.—For other [Ed. complain admission, and to because the ob Dig. 2172; Witnesses, § Cent. § 833.] jection appealed, was overruled. She has not Appeal <@=1050(1) and Error —Bound- acquiescing but is in the attitude of — — <@=35(2) aries Evidence Admissibil- ity-Prejudice. judgment. defendant claimed under Where a Mexican There is no error in the of which grant evidence that state, under a appellant right complain, has a and it is up land had been taken vicinity by affirmed. settlers under the 'state since Digests <@=For other topic Key-Numbered oases see same Indexes KEY-NUMBER *2 Tes.) LAND DUNN v. tending irrelevant, that'such litigation the as a circumstance to show since
the general reputation isting timony was arose ex- line line as established must that be admissible surveys, arose, more controversy tes- who located the defendant and before the boundary protect of his prejudicial that known than himself in case the made because it was surveys grant contrary many validity his con- be to should declared of to purchase tention, may title right. dependent title granted an adverse of the state forfeiting grant. made without of a hazard Mexican of prejudice purchaser’s and to without Appeal cases, and see [Ed. Note.—For other 1069, 4153, Error, Dig. 1068, Cent. §§ Evidence, cases, Dig. 154, Boundaries, [Ed. Note.—For other see 155.] §§ Cent. Dig. Cent. §§ 767-769.] Appeal @=31051(1) 7. and Eeeoe —Review— Try Trespass @=>47(1) 13. Title to Haemless Eeeoe. —Suit Dependant foe Moee Tuan Claims —Ef- that of evidence Error in the admission up vicinity fect. taken other lands in the had been trespass try title, although, state, prejudicial In when to because settlers under plaintiff validity for more than defendant sues land that made known to the many surveys granted by possession of, dependent claims or is in promptly session, the latter should the state pos- to that disclaim a Mexi- west line of the location of the plaintiff more fact sues for harmless, grant, in evi- a where recovery prevent than defendant claims will not of the information. the same dence would disclose plain- claimed defendant to which Appeal cases, and [Ed. Note.—For other see proves tiff title. 4162, 4105, Error, Dig. 4161, 4166.] Cent. §§ Trespass cases, [Ed. Note.—For other to see Expert Testimony — — @=>545 8. Evidence Try Dig. Title, 69.] Cent. § Boundaeies. — — @=>41 14. Pre- Boundaries Instruction during Testimony a witness sumed Geant. years had become familiar with the old county in a he been an abstractor try title, trespass In an action to in the the titles parties grants which both claim under excluded, county witness’ been since should have sovereignty proven under, by title established there- and knowledge of has no bear- land titles presumed grant invoked the doctrine ing boundary knowledge of the location applicability; had no defendant hence question. charge that the evidence would not be consid- cases, Evidence, [Ed. Note.—For other see establishing ered as an was not claim adverse Dig. 2360-2362.] Cent. §§ reversible error. Appeal @=>1050(1) Boundaries, cases, and Eeeoe 9. [Ed. Note.—For other see —Review- Dig. Harmless Eeeoe. Cent. §§ 205-207.] witness of a The admission Tey Trespass — @=>45(1) 15. to Title Mis- years during an abstrac- he had been leading Instructions. county with familiar tor in the he had become pleaded, As no issue of limitation was county was not land titles in the old submitted, although was the issue versible error. presumed grant applica- doctrine had no cases, Appeal and [Ed. Note.—For other see tion, charge there was no issue limi- 4153, Dig. 1068, 1069, Error, 4157.] Cent. §§ tation, evidence should not con- establishing any sidered as right, claim or adverse @=>333(5) Documentary Evi- 10. Evidence — unnecessary, and should dence —Recoeds. given, impression been since would create permitting The action of trial court court too much afraid to read from a memorandum book testimony, would be to and it was county surveyor, containing applica- data of telling confusing first that the evi- purchase lands, con- tion to school memoranda establishing dence could not any right consider it. considered as cerning applications purchase defendant they might and then pro- portions register of sections which was 3895, for in articles vided 3894 and Rev. .St. cases, Trespass [Ed. Note.—For other 1879, see entries which are not statute Try Title, Dig. error, 67.] Cent. § since admissible prove competent data was Appeal @=>231(9) and Eeeoe 16. —Review- agreement; application contents Objections. copies limited use of records instead to those -of should be Objections portions are admissible. which the contents calculated, especially applicable are ing on account of not be- Evidence, cases, Note.—For see [Ed. other to the facts in to mis- Dig. § 1253.] Cent. and'confuse the in an to reach lead effort (cid:127) practically verdict, Appeal there is no conflict @=>1050(1) Eeeoe —Review- whatever in the evidence as to boundaries of the lines or Harmless Eeeoe. are ad- which permitting trial The action court in peremptory whether dressed to read from memorandum book applica- given, should have do not instruction point county surveyor, containing the tions data of respect ap- out in what was not purchase school memoranda con- plicable to the evidence or how it confuse cerning applications purchase defendant objections general, were too and as the portions vided for register pro- of sections which was the proper give failed to show that would not be articles 3894 and Rev. St. in tive to the rela- rules error, applications as harmless where the calls, dignity of error bas- were admitted. themselves thereon will be overruled. ed cases, Appeal [Ed. Note.—For other see cases, Trial, [Ed. Note.—For other see Cent. Error, Dig. 1069, 4153, Cent. 4157.] Dig. 689.] § — Admissibility — @=>219(3) 12. Evidence Appeal @=>1033(5) Estoppel op Eeeoe — Purchase Adverse Title. Allege Eeeoe. patent of a deed and admission to de- may object appeal party por- A from the fendant state dated after a former case emphasized the im- tions of concerning error, since, while ac- upon by portance matters relied him. party quiescence dividing to the suit in a Appeal though estop Note.—For [Ed. even not of character denying may Error, correctness, § 4056.] him from be shown Digests @=Foi Key-Numbered (cid:127) and Indexes same in all oases see KEY-NUMBER toDio (Tex. REPORTES 193 SOUTHWESTERN Trespass — Try — <@=>2-28(3) <@=>47(1) Judg- De- '24. 18. Trial Instructions Title — sideratum. ment-Statute. provision avoid tbe Under direct court Rev. St. In a case “desideratum,” try trespass in- art. in was within and use which issue of the word the use stead words meaning generally the was used and whether the land claimed *3 grant, judgment plaintiff doubt. have no Mexican ing a for can describ- of which proper, the land was and it neces- Trial, was not cases, Cent. other see [Ed. Note.—Eor sary boundary grant; to fix of as the Dig. 512.] § persons’ rights case would not settle other by fixing even boundary. <@=>194(2) Instructions—Weight 19. Trial — oe cases, Trespass Evidence. [Ed. to Note.—For other see survey- duty charge of a Try A that it was Title, Dig. § 69.] Cent. description courses of or to a correct extend — <@=>4(K1) Question 25. Boundaries eor map notes, and into the field and distances accompanying Jury. notes, until the and such field question The location in of the presumed proven the sur- it would be verse was veyor held, jury. for the duty respects, not in those Boundaries, cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see weight al- of the as on the erroneous though shown states Dig. Cent. map §§ 196-203.] are this marked on the distances charge erroneous, also to be where Rehearing. Motion for surveyor’s duty On to actual- that it was the ly embrac- be intended to — run around <@=>35(2) 26. Boundaries Dooation oit survey natural or Reputation. and that such ed in see Lines — objects designated on it as would were n Common other repute support relied identify locality clearly point and out and years having inception survey, a line in a to extend .tract and boundaries original survey, originating after the and description objects, natural these correct survey location of the pretend the the sible. of one did not to know who map. artificial, in the field-notes and and original lines, was inadmis- eases, Trial, Note.—Eor other Cent. [Ed. see Dig. 441.] § cases, Boundaries, [Ed. see Note.—For Dig. 154, 155.] Cent. §§ <@=>290(9) oe 20. TeIial —Instructions—Cure <@=>296(2) oe 27. Trial Error. —Instructions—Cure survey charge to for a be cir- Error. A that call for An instruction rule unas- called regarding_ on three sides waters cumscribed must such dence when survey survey proof their con- former and inconsistent with certained lines control eri’oneous, although theory, evi- and be- trol over coui’ses cause by fendant claims was bounded to for defendant its distances error, applicable standing not cured where not to held alone not gi’ant charge that, portion under which de- if the in is another objected grant, way applied a named to in a the facts survey to, surrounded defendant, be that find call for the for or a to so find and grant per- and water the line of such other on three sides control. must be identified. mitted to comers Trial, eases, Trial, cases, Cent. [Ed. Cent. Note.—For other see [Ed. Note.—Eor other see Dig. Dig. 712.] 70S.] § § isted 22. Boundaries Dig. § COO.] in for, by facts, the same rule would still existed but did not exist when the Try Title, trespass yield was made. to have existed Cent. or well-known tion, subordinate older distance 7741 and 21. Trial the bounds of ment— Statute . plicability [Ed. [Ed. Note.—Eor [Ed. Note.—For other controversy plaintiff’s found and identified Under If the marks called Trespass A and a defendant but courses and distances to natural or artificial at Dig. Note.—Eor other suit has from some other the time a second direct judgment <@=>252(5) Instructions 7758, whenever try at showed the marks of when such 24-29.] on the rule object, recover the time title of the old the same effect as a at the provisions <@=>3(6) Surveys. unmarked survey Try Evidence. pleads § 69.] — held, Title for applied time line by running eases, cases, title to courses marked plaintiff — land. Rev. line or corner objects or corner controversy arose, the defendant the record <@=>47(1) Judg- can be will applicable see controversy. see as if the marks first guilty, St. take not made Trial, Trespass Boundaries, of demarka- first arriving course and land sued identified, or corner distances — nothing — survey survey to the made, in an Cent. arts. puts Ap- ex- at thereof pas Dunn The land sued Mexican in him the boundary, pus to be a $23.16. 1740. described cover 184.29 lant. ty; tiff, remanded. against verdict MOURSUND, J. C. Trespass Appeal Beaty, W. B. Christi, controversy it was situated Mexican situated By G. Enrique Dunn answered portion Scott, John Dunn. R. Scott and trespass defendant from District Seale, Hopkins, Dunn for acres of land metes -and first within the boundaries Villareal, thereto. try J. Charles and Eorwood appellee. resolved contending survey 404, Corpus the state Judge. appeals. title by the state of Tamauli- try title, damages in Boone Judgment Court, bounds, The trial while Land of the west Christi, plea therefore the sale itself in Nueces Land sued John of Texas & made Charles certificate Reversed of error seeking Nueces of not Pope, into resulted for for claimed for the sum county, of Cor- alleged one of vested guilty. virtue appel- to re- plain- Coun- Land aof com- No. Digests <@=>Eor topic Key-Numbered and Indexes other oases see same in all KEY-NUMBER n y. Tex.) LAND DUNN
plaint
permitting
Blucher,
shown
designated
Rincon
had been
speaks
The failure
case between
that
tify
tablished the
in a
in this
should not. be
directly
parties ness’ construction
case no
against
of
ground
map
cision
case
made all the
land
marked on
for
that
claiming
rights
on the evidence
for
been excluded.
admissible,
show that the
not to be embraced in' the Villareal
from this
preme
The decision itself
Case
any
ary
fact,
probative force,
placed thereon
parties
We cannot
decision of the
and
Grogaria
timony
line,
W. 623.
sustained.
such
correctness of such
doubted.
made because the'
[2]
by Land,
one
suit
that
more
that
ease
and that defendant is
meager testimony
testimony,
certificates
had it
or
The second
reported
By
justify"
of Dunn
Court had held the land in
Schaeffer
bill of
in the
in another suit to adduce
Land. This
his contention.
testimony
than that of a witness
made of
Supreme
recognized
Assignments 1,
Farias
highest
the third
cannot
Colonial
prejudicial
testimony
itself,
permit any
indirectly.
it,
and could affect no
Rincon del
but
admitting the
existed,
effect,
Supreme
witness after such
getting
one else’s construction thereof.
permitted
highly
.which
surveys for
line at a
parties
the western
witness
exceptions
line contended for
cannot
map
introduced therein
Supreme
and this case should be tried
we are unable to see how this
and not
between
The decision itself was
parties:
case,
by
it is
affect the
and need
court
Court has established the
Mortg.
and fourth
Berry.
court
what was
as the western
parties,
decision.
the witness or others
before the
that a
Tex.
then
was the line contended
testimony
would be that
the Schaeffer v.
prejudicial
testimony
to introduce
ruling
true,
ánd the line contended
Court
intimation
conclusive,
and the construction
according
The
of the state had es-
place
We cannot
2, 4, 5, 6,
affected
Court in said
permitted plaintiff
fails to show
do less harm than
Co. v.
locations of state
go
The
The case
before
not be discussed.
controverting
permitted
had the Dix
rights
ask
testimony.
logical
jury
introduced
of Texas
grant
or even
east
before the
contended
the failure of it,
this case
That the tes
rights
should have
complaint
to the effect
decision
The
qualification
the witness
Tubbs,
in a bound-
assignments
controversy
to the
line of
had found
cannot be
testimony.
entitled
and 9 are
since the
inference
by Land
court
referred
the wit-
imagine
another
the Su
opinion
parties
to tes
grant.
Berry
45 S.
case,
in a made
fact
The
had
any
the see how the
de- which all of
in
in to
to the
is contained
lines
the
lineated,
was
tiff
veys.
by defendant,
on his
translation
of
chain bearers. The
stand that locations under
ment is overruled.
Nueces river
White
settlers,
titles is
was not
Gridley,
ord
made
made on
ords of Nueces
is
that the
veyor
W.
surveys
913; Mackey Armstrong,
cate, and a witness thereto swore
first'pass
Canales
The
certified
lots of
App. 383,
county
relevant,
made because the court
ing
facts
state his conclusion that such
exclusive.
was shown
sought
ask defendant’s witness Noakes the follow
beforehave taken
sion,
S. W. 325.
argument
most
a fact
grant]
submitted
office
“Now,
[4] Defendant offered in evidence the rec
[5]
The
[6,
dated
prove by
been taken
location of
territory
of a
question:
asked.
witness was
south of the
7]
The
and the records of Nueces
entirely
that since that time
of the Villareal
that land out there
map.
This witness
people out
to be
clerk
Bluff,
to be marked
objection
By
sign
I will ask
and that when he made the
March
admissible
point designated
which was introduced
certificate
ask
Antonio
White v.
120 S. W.
August
the court
which is found on
under the
eighth
thereunder
all of such
thereof,
the tenth
Enrique
Canales’
Tex.
*4
jury
Farias
Under
it. The record of the certificate
an effort to
elicited was immaterial
v.
its witness C.
of Nueces
the name
such state
the western
up by
county
well known
higher
24, 1849,
question,
up
Civ.
witness to
could have
2,
permitted
there who weren’t out there
records of
Canales,
blanketed
was th'at
you,
assignment
Rincon
McCullough,
1093; Magee Paul,
recorded
afterwards the
in the
land out there?”
Villareal was one of the
governor
signature
assignment
settlers under the
in 1849. The certificate
occupancy
“state,”
assignment
App. 13,
territory.
reference
than the
showed the alternate
relates
evidence. Barrow v.
Mr.
permitted plaintiff
circumstances
Creek,
county
prove
has,
refused to let
line of the
[the
and which
and the Dix
surveys
with the
made a
del Oso which he
Spanish language
84 Tex.
Noakes,
explain
failed
F. H. Blucher
is
possession
Refugio,
and wel
state
ascending
litigation
to the certifi
59 S.
testify
solely
the deed rec
original
between
that he saw
to the effect
56 Tex. Civ.
county.
great
general
complaint
Tamaulipas
v.
The
heights
proposition
parol
relates
before
state sur-
overruled.
were
had been
litigation
if it isn’t
map
letter
Villareal
the old
W.
assign-
posses
proper
under-
fail to
deal
to the
plain-
is
state,
lines
19 S.
what
as to
line,
sur
wps
The
de-
al-
ir-
B
(Tex.
193 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
less.
of which the
ever,
mitted,
as the
acres,
its entries
is
patent
made said
Eé
tion
that
stead
a memorandum
sections
was the
3894 and
no
school
tions
reversal of
titles
containing
complain
jected
signment
mon
he
of
of
tion,
error is
he
we hold
rule the
missible
76 S. W.
of the admission
French to the effect that
involved,
of the disclosure
used in
(Matthews
pellee’s
It cannot he relevant as
reputation
troversy
issue
was irrelevant.
ion,
that in
dicial for it to made known
been taken
[12]
We see no
[10,11]
made
[8,
prove
had
' Railway Company, containing
had
statute,
to the
such data was not
9] The eleventh
knowledge
as the
is irrelevant.
objection
and should
bought
fact
and the land
whether
to
By assignments
location
agreement
and deed
titles has no
state
that the error is
contention as to the
survey 314, Gulf,
controversy
404 and 406.
become
the
must be that
assignment.
the contents of
matter, owing
trivial,
copies,
defendant
arose.
Assignments
validity
register provided
61),
it is doubtless
could he
evidence
evidence was
data of
admissible in
applications
for the
permitting
line of the Rincon del Oso
the twelfth
register
county.
overruled.
and are cited
up by
under the
an abstractor
memoranda
Thatcher,
contents are
objection
judgment.
introduction
of the
R.
book
dependent upon
familiar
should be limited
The
and would
have been
by maps of such
for the use of
It
of the
we fail
S. 1879. We
yet,
Nueces
complained
applications
kept
bearing on his
settlers
defendant. The
The
general
is bound
or
testimony,
existing
many surveys granted
á
boundary
assignment complains
We
have been
state
plaintiff
16 and 17
*5
to
purchase
33 Tex. Civ.
13
to
in view of the
assignment.
part
themselves were ad 738;
made on the
add no
competent
harmless,
establishing general testimony
from the
certified
concerning applica
witness’
admissible. How
a matter of com
Colorado & Santa
fact
presume the book
evidence.
in Nueces
to
during
county.
county surveyor,
application,
under the
other lands than was
not
excluded. This
of reputation
before the con
see how much
large
the land
of was harm
to be
to read from
none,
to
the location
force to
have found
records,
require
portions
in articles
knowledge
knowledge
sustained,
complaint
copies
inclusive,
locations,
our
to those
of
purchase
old
evidence
territory
In view
covered tiff
The
persons
ground
county
patent
Objec
which
preju
A.
277%
years
maps
ques
over
state
opin grant.
of a
land
line.
ob-
ad
ap-
in
as- vey
M. troversy
tiff
claimed
Ballard v.
ment will be
as well as
Pouns v.
When
otherwise, even if he
Tex. Civ.
sues for more
is in
disclaim as
S. W. 234.
charge:
land described
plaintiff,
and
half of the
of the refusal to
sustain the
believe the
plaintiff
no more
Dix
than
of the land
sion of
to show
show that such line is the line as establish-
ed
Oanales.
under
claimed
asmuch as the
may
the
reject
tion as to said line thereafter established
appellee
dividing
to
the
have
However,
show
If
and could not
pellant
state
claimed
created the
ly
by'
“In this
[13] The
known after
by
estop
plaintiff
is correct
will
acceptance
you
west
was the west line
strip
original
Kinney
line should
possession of,
described as a
acquiescense
according
be shown as a circumstance
before
Zarate v.
defendant disclaims as to
acquiescence
appellee’s theory.
not tend to establish the
ruling
fails
The deed was to 136.28
cannot
will
recover
is of the
that the east line
Dix line was
Dix
Zachery,
than
App. 464,
created
him from.
sued for
Villareal
in this case the acts relied on
In
Carmichael,
immaterial and
him,
his costs. Bender
to that
assignments.
case
him,
When he
under which
evidence should
eighteenth assignment complains
asserts title
controversy,
sued for in his
defendant,
accoi-dingly
stated,
defendant
line was the
section
surveyor.
as
fact,
even
rendered
to
to the'
recoverin this
defendant,
he will be
tend to raise a
state
all to
you
be determined
opinion
the Villareal
Villareal,
protect
bought
by
give
the latter
part
could as
though
by plaintiff,
than
what defendant did was
correct.
.occurred after the con-
that the land an because issue to be one find Laguna Cayo expressions Madre and the del con- suits. See except Upshur, 64; Titterington tract it all sides the west. 26 Tex. The Booth v. v. 193 S.W.—15 (Tex. 193 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER mon
fact that
made his
the distance called for on Canales’
particular suit
doubtless
real
him was
Rincon del Oso
at
would come nearest
no common
vey,
nized
traced
the
the Rincon del Oso
thus
troversy
many years
there is no
ed lines or that
Rincon del Oso
line was
originated
made it
self
lee calls
was
applying
urged
harmless to ask
controversy as
must
troversy
the
troduced in evidence
as
theory
correctness of the
remanded.
permit
to the correctness
Berry
Kirby,
Jacoby
find
ask what
could
the line marked D-Y
that such line
also
Supreme Court had decided in favor of the
veys
court
state
should hold that
ed that
S. W. 524.
[26] In
the
to its’effect
the true
impress
Dix line had its
question.
anything
repute relied on
filed a
appeared
created tend to show that
people
peace;
surveys
have been
place
be no
why
v.
47 Tex. Civ.
that it
v.
him
he is unable to
created the
arose which was created
permit
run,
attention to
arose.
On Motion ior
many
recognized
line
the rule that
lines,
as located
survey whereby
appellee’s
Schaeffer,
from the
Norton,
bought
pretense that
footsteps
each line
reputation
where
it should be
location of the west line of the
good many years
afterwards
controversy
admissible,
but how
objection
bought
and that
on
so run
could not
on
Of
survey,
represented
who claimed under
*9
survey.
explain
the other side
Blucher to
questions
When the Dix
established
is
any
from the
it was not error for the
the
Dix
the
40 Tex. Civ.
course,
not filed
really
reversed,
inception
controversy
motion we find
with
of Canales?
and no reason
the Dix
by
map,
containing
by appellee
from the
one before
map.
length
represents,
in existence
line. The decision
therefore
the west line
Dix. But we fail to
does
the Dix
him. After the con
be introduced
the common
Dix
he found
Rehearing.
understand
and common
corresponding
existed. There was twenty-seventh assignment,
held to
fact
common
asking
about the case of
of man
have him answer
the fact that this
state
testify
the west line of
This is
before the
of the
located his line
survey. Appel
106 S. W.
involved
47
after the
determine the tion,
that this
idea that
is entitled to
line fixed
yet
the Dix line
App. 313,
a lot of sur
we erred
were
map
in
years
line,
in
state,
change
by
made,
reputation
any
and there
when
The com
about
repute
map,
west line
refuse to
favor of
order to slightest
who did
why we
his sur
begging
it stat
can be
repute
repute
mark
recog
bound
which
Villa-
cause
about
after
until
with
con
Dix
suit
Dix
in
it
'or
inapplicable
cable. If the facts
pellee apparently
is based
call
for
therefore the
call for an
vey,
intended
calling
Surely
making
rected in the
able to see
with
statement so
Farias
in the correctness
pending
tions made under the Villareal
ales instead
feiting
Dix
how could be
and also with
show
Villareal
amount
superior one,
which
situated on the West line of the
ed
well
ments
taining the sixteenth and seventeenth
admissible. State
reference
lines,
not
cation of the
chaser’s
state
as.the
is
and thus
rectness of the
said in
would
cation of the lines run
that
boundaries
there is no contention that
esced
filed in which
reconveyance
Appellee
Acquiescence is
at least
W. 396.
made without
pretend
preclude
for
state to sell land west of the
line. The
but
regard
cannot
as with reference to the
every
survey,
acquiescence
reference
shows on
if he called
By inadvertence,
title
not tend
dividing
contended
for an unmarked
the
right. Buying
merely
to do
doubt
upon
error.
the line contended
purchasing
to corners of a
indirectly acquiesced
unmarked line of an
unmarked
an admission that it was not
any
and without
contends that we
case Turner
to said
to have
suit in
one
Rincon
of Medrano.
purchase
Dunn
he has
made,
five
line of
original opinion.
his
charge
so. The
the
the
reference to
acceptance
that the
original
was the
force in the
called
incurring
having been made
Dix
contends
own
v.
years
only
admissible on
corners of
which the
in the correctness
we
indisputably
facts,
any way
face
to show
parcel
theory
circumstance
presumed
jury might
between
there
Dayton
recognized
line of another
from the
was
for
line.
by Canales,
therefore fail to see
from the state would
for an unmarked
charge
prejudice
that Dunn’s fence
Dix
lines. Such
knowledge
charge
contending
after
because
superior one,
This has been cor
taking a
an unmarked
survey,
the hazard of
could not be the
that Canales did
line
Dunn
we
peculiarly appli
any acquiescence
adverse title
state
Lumber
argument
line.
survey,
but in this case
Judge
their
land is describ-
discussing
Kinney
described with
Smith,
erred
of error.
speaks
to know
described
state
adjacent
reconveyance
was
show
find that he
state
bore
Kinney
We
Kinney
Canales,
by plaintiff
ever
tending
survey
lands.
and that
quitclaim
Dix
suit
mistake.
Wheeler
entirely
right
are un
did not
Co., 159
11 Tex.
another
out the
survey,
in sus-
charge
assign-
section
theory
the lo-
repute
of his
acqui-
is in-
Can-
pur-
sur
line
cor-
sec-
and
Ap
sec-
for-
nor
lo-
in
as
Tex.)
REA
EVANS v.
707
Appeal
County Court;
mis
J. H.
from Knox
of his own
lie
not do so
charge
Milam, Judge.
portion
con
take.
second
of
tinually
against
sur
refers
an older
Action
to marked line of
William Rea and others
vey,
making
plain
judgment
rule
thus
Evans and
Dave
others. From a
they
that,
plaintiffs,
appeal.
to the
was to the effect
for
deffendants
Affirmed.
See, also,
for
east
found
Canales called
S.
<£^>For KEY-NUMBER there is tbe tbe evidence as to the have been aided of tbe eral that grant. practically in an effort to we fail -These to see bow them. no conflict whatever in objections lines reach a It-is not tbe court were so' boundaries pointed required gen tbe singled called for notes cotfrse and distance are not weight out so as to be relied of tbe evidence. Tbe matters presumed upon by make seen each to be tbe party correct, particularly calls for are thus one on until {Tex. 193 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER ent with such call the facts in lant, to his there is no ment follows: scribed on nounces a familiar jection. for must control acquainted ment. proven course n Under the veyor calling 11 the first boundary disputes, might for it distance The elder and distance unmarked sides certaining culiar offered originally “You are further instructed [21,22] The
Notes
[20] for rule the call for the of error. 'theory, infer facts incorrect. We will harmonize the mistake, The second in such water line when the facts and circumstances surveyed and furnish a correct first sentence three distance will merit in survey has no circumstances therefrom, will theory. as well as true way twelfth call prevail proof and such sides tend to paragraph 'boundaries way to be application rule case, might true for a marked sentence, unmarked However, in called survey when as to permitted objected over a overrule the is not in a control a of law paragraph surrounded twenty-sixth assign locality, show call for the waters because the remaining calls paragraph survey give way 10 is standing to an must be held to be call for course subject under applicable that the sur- guide the calls prominence so that the call for paragraph and called course and applied inconsist by appel unmarked reads as on three was un- control. circum assign- for as- 10 an to ob called alone, grant. of an rule pe Thomas, which guide the older in. where a wooden one time marks to be found tas the west the Farias had. He for the older south located cluded in the survey was made in. 1805. In 1831 Canales it cannot essary. a to set ald v. and limitations thereof have been sons and Civ. defendant claims. The Senpra del prairie it, creek, along In 15 S. W. line, marking Freeman, has since become well established that the Rincon fact, stone monument “as 168 W. See Maddox second therefore determining Farias, line some where a be laid survey. Refugio,” which the facts in it is gave 237; survey. mark, fonning 26 S. W. cases survey had never which he had applicable down as an absolute applied merely went back to the Tex. v.Ware He stated that he reached it long pole Bros. the southeast corner of what from there ran out and ordered the is viewed as the best the name of “Nuestra can be might perish.” and cases Of principle grant, course, rule McQuinn, as if it the case Fenner, identified, S. W. awas Herrera surveyed called there Hermann v. cross under which marked. actually cited found announced set if at Puehtici- evidence marked locality 79 Tex. 7 Tex. of Ger- are no there- for party rule, Said nec- top for in- it, If a