*1 McCORMACK v. CRAWFORD value, measured difference is assignments We think other sufficiently upon Head, raised this record. Justice covered the discussion. Abbott, App. case of Barker Tex. Civ. Reversed and remanded. procedure tbe discusses upon recovery part rule based where a it is nership matter. charge Again, exemplary damages to as McCORMACK v. (No. 766.)* CRAWFORD. corporation (Court able its' for tbe acts of Appeals of Civil of Texas. Amarillo. Nov. state, agent, 1915. Rehearing, On tbe rule of law in as Motion for this 5, 1916.) Jan. principal tbe is not liable &wkey;40— Survey 1. — — Boundaries punitory damages Notes for torts serv tbe of tbe Jury. Question same, ant tbe master authorized tbe trespass try In to title where no conflict or, knоwledge wrong of tbe committed appeared inspection from an of the field notes nature, and its it so composing ratified various block, but where |the conflict arose particular between calls in to act. as make the act his own the field notes of a Gulf, Reed, Colorado & R. Santa Fé R. Co. v. upon aof as to the Rep. 15 S. W. 26 Am. St. manner constructed, which the block was question deciding as to 749. We are acts whether tbe survey- and the contention of the here, making from distinct tbe af tbe thereto, or with jury. reference was for the fidavit, sequestration, issuance tbe of tbe eases, Boundaries, [Ed. Note. —For other see levy predicate tbe of same are sufficient tо Dig. 196-204; Dig. &wkey;40.j Cent. §§ Dec. exemplary damages. specific question Tbe Appeal >@^882—Party and Error 2. En- Allege upon Estoppel. peculiar tbe condition of record is this titled to Error — trespass try really up Defendant raised, title questions other tbe put evidence of the how as sufficiently on this brief record constructed, complain could not excursion, troublesome without an such appeal such evidence on the Court Civil though worthy question Appeals. serious cases, Appeal upon Note. —For other see and Er- [Ed. consideration au this record and tbe Cent.Dig. 3591-3610; Dee.Dig. ror, §§ thorities in this state. Surveyor’s — —<&wkey;3 3. Boundaries Texas assigned money [8] It ex is also tbe Notes. pended by sheep caring Hawkins trespass try involving In title the -lines damages. held tbe measure It they appeared of block C-3 in the field notes as expenses taking reasonable incurred of the various sections of block which system blocks constituted based curing injured animal, care an result on the line outlined who had wrong company, from of tbe railroad tbe upon one run were notes in the fact notes that which all line damage, is an element of and can be recover by him, constructed shown his field Ry. Cocke, apart, ed. I. G. N. Co. Tex. 151. land office several months he made out first and filed appellee cross-assigns [9] Tbe trial prevent did not the further fact jury, refusing court erred in to submit to tbe the linеs of that block were for in called damage, element of the value lambs J-K, having weight, notes of its due prior which, rule that the lines of a ill but for tbe treatment to tbe moth controlled the call cannot be survey, which, ers, born, would have been apply. did not proof, tbe would been worth some have Boundaries, cases, [Ed. Note. —For other see Clearly too remote. Baker Dig. Dig. 8800. 3-41; <®¿»3.) Dec. §§ Cent. Mims, App. 14 Tex. Civ. <&wkey;l Surveys—Lines. 4. Boundaries — at the value unborn colts was block or marked A belongs system much tempted be recovered. , as to another. question We are also confronted Boundaries, cases, see [Ed. Note. —For disposition of tbe character this case. Dig. <@=el.] Dig. 1;§ Dee. Cent. If tbe knew of bank somе manner Surveys <&wkey;342'— Texas 5. Evidence knowledge agreement ratified after tbe Maps. Sketches claimed to have been made Hawkins trespass try title, certified sketches regard Lester, land office were and to competent substitution prima facie, show, the location least sheep, levying upon sheep it it would be surveys outlined there. subject belonged Hawkins, knew cases, Evidence, Note. —For other see [Ed. pleading mortgage, upon proper Dig. |§ 1302-1314; Dig. &wkey;342J Cent. proof open up would the whole &wkey;5l0ol Harmless Error exemplary damages particular those of Evidence. Error —Admission trespass try proof sheep. al- title If the could not be lowing chief draftsman say, we are unable we reform testify with referеnce to what office from surveys judgment court, the trial affirm the same various damages as to actual harmless, and field rendered, themselves notes facts thereof. render favor appeared from an examination exemplary Lester the bank and dam- ages. present pursue At we the course of Appeal and see Note. —For [Ed. reversing remanding <&wkey;> the cause for anoth- Dig. 4161-4170; Error, er trial. 1051.] Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes <§^>Forother oases see same and KEY-NUMBER rehearing pending February 9, Application *Second motion for denied of error writ Supreme Court. *2 (Tex. SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER Special — Findings — land but had commissioner 7. BOUNDARIES plat the returned with the field notes be- Issues. try title, trespass find fore affirmativе an him. In to origi ing special the toas whether on the surveyor locating- issue Evidence, cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see oth J-K and nal blocks Dig. <&wkey;83.] 105; Dig. Cent. § Dec. him from on ers it the base — — <&wkey;460 13. Evidence Evidence Parol the monument located at sod of Survey. eastward, No. 9 in block surveyor’s maps A conflict between the the southwest corner whether he located required n the parol steps to to‘resort on line two miles block C-3 possible evidence to ascertain if the foot- monument, to the issue surveyor. grantee the state and whether the officers named in Evidence, cases, patents [Ed. Note.—For see patents other intended, when Dig. Dig. &wkey;460.] 2115-2128; Cent. issued, §§ Dec. granting and 5 werе that 3No. adjoining adjacent Survey — — to and should lie i&wkey;l Disre- Boundaries garding immaterial. block J-K Calls. Boundaries, cases, trespass try given by title, Note.—For other see [Ed. mis- to calls Dig. <&wkey;42.] Dig. given disregarded Dec. to § Cent. take effect be found in con- calls which were certain and were — Appeal <&wkey;1050 Harmless Error nection other matters grant Evidence. Error —Admission conform contained in the which would in the evidence case In such parties. it intention to the evident bearing upon less, issue was harm- such immaterial Boundaries, cases, see [Ed. Note.—For other is sufficient that within rule Dig. &wkey;?l.] Dig. judgment verdict, § Cent. Dec. evidence to sustain im- of the admission of — Surveys not be reversed because materiаl erly — &wkey;>10 Field 15. Boundaries prop- facts, such admission has Explanation. Notes — findings. jury in influenced constituting a The field of a block Appeal cases, by subsequently other Note.—For see prior made field notes of might explained [Ed. Error, 4166; Dig. §§ Cent. another time constructed 'for return- block Dig. &wkey;3l050.] permitted Dee. within three months’ plats land office. notes to Rehearing. for On Motion Boundaries, cases, see [Ed. Note.—For other i&wkey;lO.] Dig. Dig. <&wkey;83 Presumption—Official 90, 91; Dec. §§ Cent. — 9. Evidence Survey—Maps as Evidence. Acts — t&wkey;3 Surveys—Calls. 16. Boundaries — Sayles’ Ann. St. Under Vernon’s corner of for northwest While call every district, 5306, requiring coun- every art. dignity survey the call for the southwest 5, calling than 1 in is no more a block ty, surveyor speciаl once in to survey No. three months made in district mound, for county, date, and send that sketches point, yet if the could be lo- meant a general office, court, on thereof showing try dis- course and well-marked line cated on a trespass that involved tance, am unmark- for it should control call title were office constructed with away ed corner several actually survey- line, to a base reference descriptive purely saw, and which was never except as on the to such base ed must tion of the office to the land determining call, was actual- where the block reproduc- presume were a ly on the required to be so returned cases, Boundaries, see Note.—For [Ed. survey- showing the acts of Dec, <&wkey;>3.] Dig. Dig. 3-41; Cent. §§ or in blocks. the location of such cases, Evidence, [Ed. Note.—For see County; Court, Hale from District Dig. Dig. <&wkey;83.] § Cent. Dec. Judge. Yeale, Special Jno. W. <&wkey;36 Evidence—Maps. 10. Boundaries — Crawford, by Ralph Trespass try title trespass try title where the con- Ralph stituting the necessary part death D. Craw- the statute continued after his grant, a conflict with the showed another, Charles McCor- ford and C., section 1 in block wherein plaintiffs Judgment and defend- for mack. sought it to tie the appeals. Affirmed. ant section block M-8 away 1 in and No. and 15 miles Russell, Plainview, Mont- and J. T. C. D. respectively, should have' been submitted appellant. jury. Falls, gomery, for Wichita cases, Boundaries, Williams, Plainview, [Ed. Note.—For other see and N. A. Mathes Dig. 160-162, 164, 166-176; Dig. Cent. §§ appellees. Rector, Austin, for <&wkey;36.j &wkey;?3 Surveys — 11. Boundaries Texas HALL, Ralph “Descriptive Crawford instituted this J. Calls” —“Locative Calls.” ordinary C., against appellant, In field *3 C-3, 2, J-K, er lines in blocks J-K J-K and by The land claimed defendant Crawford 3, previous mentioned, fine than the above is described in his answer as follows: being location. I do recollect ever “Beginning miles survey two east and four 124, at the southeast comer of block plain- north of sod monument to in M-8, county. referred in Swisher I do not recollect petition survey survey tiff’s as the northeast corner of I was ever at the comer of beginning J-K, No. point block county. and which said 9j 1, block M-13 in Swisher The mounds survey 29, by block by 1876, northeast made me on me in S-l, located; 1,621 as now they surveys thence east varas where fitted into the at time of point C-3; to a line thence location, west their referred to of were to be the intended mounds 7,300 south varas to a on north line of retracing in in some- 1,621 No. J-K thence my west varas to the south- lines, put up I and where mounds J-K; survey 4, east comer of year block thence pits 1876, following, I them found in. 7,300 beginning. north nearly by varas to the destroyed stop The land buffaloes, so that I greater part thus described tions up includes the ped putting large sec- them monuments which and established the 5, plaintiff’s petition.” 3 set out in earth could applies prairies obliterate. Ralph D. On the trial admitted that up put could rock we My mound will not find for comers. 5, surveys block Crawford 3 and Julia recollection is that in all the field a notes corner, may C-3, was called for at each located. wherever same put show for I themselves. mound The issue in the case was as to pits, two one on each side of the I was plaintiffs of block C-3. The con- running, end of mile run at the each me properly located, 1876, except that block when tended rock earth monuments or mounds are ever I called. do not remember to have on S-l and J-K was surrounded blocks surveyed ei or measured the distance from west, south, on 2 3 block J-K on J-K survey 124, ther the southwest corner of block Ray Surveys east, on the Hobbs M-8, survey 1,. or the southeast comer No. north, lying M-13, vicinity.” surveys 0-3, or be- block the tween block C-3 and said last-named surveys 0-3', block M-13. The de- block The field notes was that there was survey fendants’ contention a beginning the north- 1,621 existing vacancy according wide block, varas comer said show west east, agreement block C-3 on the S-l and blocks this court yacancy west; that a also ex- beginning J-K on block 15 corner of said 1 is 2 north line of J-K isted between the corner sur- miles south from the southeast According vey 124, C-3. the south line of block and 12 miles block south evidence, survey 1, introduced in there was a the sod corner No. the southwest block was a remaining which well-established monument calls of said M-13. The section 1 J-K, being corner, near thе center are as follows: 1,900 mound; comer section 9 of said “Thence south varas thence 1,900 mound; 1,900 north east varas protracted varas A block. monument would line east from the sod 1,900 mound; beginning.” west varas to the south line of remaining surveys in said block 0-3 located, last-named block accord- begin survey a corner of next call to plaintiff. contention of through preceding numerical order on it in by deposition Summerfield John nothing except call for that at the block and in substance follows: specified. a mound is The field each corner years age, Dallas, “I am 59 reside Tex.; ran 5, from block are dated 1876 notes November doing instrument, solar meridian town 1S77, the General Land filеd Office ship government for the United States passed January 7, as correct on the I and 1875. am the same 1874 Summerfield county, March of Hale signed the field who blocks notes C-3, J-K, 2 and 3 J-K survey, in Hale of a' Meld made K. N. 1876,1 ran a line and establish Smith, introduced in were earth ed certain pits, adopted dated at monuments and mounds and begin- 0-3 is located from of these marks afterwards some ning block, No. in said call of comers for and field adoption. of their earth 1,621 line of the block will the entire west lie monument at northeast comer of mound or J-K, east line east of the cre- varas ating J-K, 9„ block was built me on the vacancy blocks, between the two morning June was established as per my field notes at the end of the of the land claimed de- which on line I was mile due east eleventh fendant. east) (variation degrees, 45 minutes from an 11 objections plain- defendant, Over the by me monument established other earth monuments, the field notes day June, Nos. tiff These no be 11 2d my chainmen, errors were to 11 inclusive block J-K. apart. ran east miles at the1northeast sod monument begin 1 in said block call to survey 9, comer mound the northwest at .a 3, 1876, miles, and on June seven then turned miles, chains, links, put and for the in block north and ran 381 SOUTHWESTERN (Tex. REPORTER in. block. Th’e The witness then describes in detail surveyed by up field notes of cor- in one of tbe line him to June ners calls for tbe sod monument heretofore continues: setting mentioned; and without оut “I ran south for 15 miles to a and two mound pits mile; at the end of each I then turned and *4 61, The field notes'of adopted on said lines were as the corners for M-3, 68 of block introduced surveys in said blocks. None the sur- of veys none of which refer to either of the three in blocks M-13 and 0-3 out on by were run and the corners me established blocks last above mentioned. The field notes except any survey may have touched the survey of said are5 dated March suppose you base line as above. call them of- remaining and the in notes of the field plotted sup- fice posed wore January 21, are dated 1878. said block connect from the line as base prac- above described. H. Hedrick C. was not surveys patents 5, 3 The of ticing surveyor, signed he some of the field 1878, surveys 28, describing dated March' deputy as a of Land Jack exactly original notes, District, plotted as in the were in- run base fines me. years. He has dead a number of Gun- Jot troduced. ter and T. S. McClelland are also dead.” The defendant evidence defining surveys the boundaries number of in block field notes of a footsteps surveyor, Summerfield, B-5, M-6 and of the field notes along are found if his testi- survey ’south 1, M-13, mony is to be true. witness begins taken as 2 last-named at a mound says plotted he block C-3 survey 124, located of south corner southeast of although base, is not Sep- this line as a the line MS. (cid:127)block These field notes are dated fiеld notes. As heretofore mentioned 29, 1877; 1, 1877; tember fiied November beginning 1, of section corner passed pat- and ented as correct 'and 0-3 is “15 miles south from the south- January 18, 1878. then The defendant survey 124, M-8, deposition introduced the of John Summer- south of southwest corner 12 miles field, in which testified that in 1874 he he says survey 1, block Summerfield he M-13.” government, worked for the United States in that distance measured the stated running boundary Colorado, never call, lines Indian being at Kansas; and has recollection ever Territory, no Southern that he survey 124, block charge 1876, comer the southeast came to Texas in and took M-8, block M-13. or the southwest party of Jot Gunter and W. B. proposition [1,2] Appellant’s is: surveyed first Sherman, Munson, land at as surveys defi- and are Chlloway deputy “Where block under W. a Jack ground nitely calls of fixed on located district, surveying land what uncertainty there is no field notes and Randall, Smith, Castro-, Deaf is known as ambiguity in said field note's whatever or Swisher, applied and Hale counties. This themselves, where witness or when as the evidence there is no conflict further stated: surveys any must be located material fact give you “I herewith line run me in field notes.” their own calls of from the year surveys 1876, from which all the of blocks jury M-S, M-13, as the first submitted to The platted. located and Wherever the comers following: special issue the by me in the line established touched same was hereafter described originаl surveyor, Summerfield, blocks who “Did any surveys any blocks, locate said and J-K adopted and described in the field by him from the on the base 0-3 block sod ‘mound’ notes. The in said term comer noi’theast monument ‘point,’ used instead of the word from said eastward corner in did describe monument, cor- the southwest he locate and did pits, mounds and on then no mound was established on said in said block 0—3 No. 5 ner of line 2 The blocks men- Answer sod monument? of said miles east supposed were all tioned contain 640 acres yes no.” or and call run in one another. mentioned as answered, Appellant began large re- “Yes.” I side earth 1876 monument Lodge- on the south sldn McClelland and W. Munson in earth monument Canadian river on оnly. peremptory quested instruction creek, in Potter established T. S. urged proposition under the second B. and this assignment that: afterwards B. can be S. & or block F. “Where my survey definitely field I started 9. of their own located from 21st day May, 1876, | ambiguity from this is no uncex’- corner.” notes and McCORMACK v. CRAWFORD 489 tablished at ing of the testimony of Summerfield shows that survey actually Justice, in Shindler v. Lutcher & vey. calls in an office upon son v. 358; mony Having ber tion of out and filed not of block an actual did not affect the conflict Finberg, merfield ran cites The evidence in no Cox v. of the office 101 S. W. er than the field notes of the actual 1031; perusal block C-3 C-3 are called manner in which the block was constructed. several Lumber bald, Rep. field notes of the various sections of error to authorize ed tainty shown Converse v. Summerfield was S. W. [3, Appellant question law, for.” prevent a landmark which could 59 W. Co., 4] itof was introduced support of these Matthews v. 27; Thompson Taft the line outlined position Blackwell Ribble, blocks were constructed Finks, constitute he located various sections of block 931; Upshure from line months S. W. appears Co., C-3 Summerfield, his field notes survey, Anderson v. 1013; Keystons undisputed these authorities of fact contention; the further fact that Langshaw, App. 621, consider the S. W. upon Word, calls, having constructed, now to apart. 506.W. made on the S. S. W. v. Coleman Tex. Civ. Coleman from a from an the fact that the field notes Thatchеr, 33 insists priority this run Langdon, as to the were dated one We admit system been admitted it became with objected complain both 37 S. wherein he details 64; propositions The fact that he made testimony Stamps, line, upon filed are based County but the held that calls for the lines of Co. v. Peach but a serious locate the Busk App. 270, not marked by appellant. No inspection of the actual sur reference thereto. Johnson v. surveys recogniz must, only of C-3 in the field notes Stewart, 65 S. W. him. tends to County, that a to and the land in this court. is that Sum Tex. be known Moore by him, the lines of J-K. jury Manghum, McMeans, which all first, day Tex. Lewright, Gilbert a matter another Am. Master and es of J-K ment survey, sustain careful or call- indeed Archi inten based River S. W. Lum could these earli App. Tex. does 460; con The it is St. 28 sue wherein it is than 10 nesses his troduce in in evidence and the facts cupied ence to what field notes themselves sion in evidence witness them, witnesses testified they the first joining from these witnesses therefore ified furnished sketches General Land objection could ond issue submitted to the the United Packer, facie the location harmless. named in the at the of certain Haile that said always this case whether 146, 12 rial duced. not 1110. of an affirmative cient tended surveys “Lou will determine from all the evidence in We [7, system surveys belongs Texas, submitted deposition, moreover, apply. certainly bearing that a yes 8] Appellant predicates One are inclined It was Ray, Fortenberry, the court in that some of them had had years, having 125 S. W. Complaint competent Johnson, appearing special Myers purchased another. not be reversed have influenced Hunnicutt, error, and the J-K no.” stipulation The rule is that portions States, marked U. S. Crosby 3 and agreed appellant, J-K. Lou will upon a claim here is not not to the first. Therefore the patents time said to sustain held Office, state the Land Office. issue. The evidence adduced either of should admitting or not if 309, Sup. harmless. and S-l. finding by the real certain from the Land from an examination of Moody, to show at permitting appellee grantee, any, Booker v. line or corner a certain v. also made lying the same fenced and 8 S. W. 1088. Chief having substance to the lie Stevenson, the officers testimony introduced were ownership. patents granting the verdict the in material opinion permitted, and Hobbs. case of adjacent testify the answers made error jury maps, Supreme between C-3 and Draftsman in the controversy, Ct. answer this Ralph The vacant outlined special C-3 Hart, there is is as 907, L. Ed. has no mate- admission of testimony, much to one least being copies with refer of the Clement introduced the admis in a block jury upon possession *5 maps attorneys, Office are Crawford, 31 Court be intro Certified The sec the state over the follows: 77 Tex. strip by and ad- the ac issues, thе is- issued, prima These there, judg- more spec light ques- suffi- wit this W. oc in in- ia v. C-3 is above the office with a Whitts, in block J-K. out contradiction that ed to and No. ground, base that are a notes of section in the from the sod monument merfield shown a ute, mating veyor it was part away, mit them King, worth. “There is another base section of the sought .be returned reproduction in the respectively. statute, showing Since necessary part these sixth locative show without we must section 1 in’ Tex. line which conflict no actual to the call for M-13 the record' and duty natural they constitute, location of said blocks. *6 map, prepared constructed on the base opinion northeast corner of The evidenсe tie calls. jury for whatever with the calls presume rule to the northwest and artificial Since we described Am. the the exception that block properly As and that these blocks the established trial Land Office Dec. 304: be observed with reference to these was made on 124 in block M-8 that 12 and 15 acts M-8, in the are grant, judge in Stafford so, maps except in the these (cid:127) calls. Thomas descriptive, 0, wherein .corner section we by Sum- are all requir in esti- by the length are a think with maps They such stat field sub sur the are P. is v. the state issued the block 0-3 or ters of fect tion make it conform to the evident intention of the parties’ ”—citing a number of authorities. given by ed with the field notes fore of the statute above ment should with such matters of are the field appear form [12] [13, which the connection parol found, which, footsteps of all given him, contained should to the evident M-8 certainty, We 14] be located that mistake should be grant the field that evidence and if the to the calls which are these, must “were issued” be of the can be with with ought the Land conflict between the required disregarded description parties, presume in connection with other mat- evidently given calls subdivision contained in accordingly. are the surveyor, connection with the facts intention of the not to be held grant, will make it con looked at the time the patent subject-matter ascertain, patent cеrtain for block but the and the transaction the court to identify matters of “from considera Commissioner under disregarded, certainty identified, quoted, as were and effect in the was thereof, the surveyor, the by mistake, if it certain that when Issued, grant, are maps void; parties.” evidently' possible, require descrip case thereof return and ef- should to the found resort given grant the be BOOK HEATH v. tion, ed, J-K is the when the nation into the he made, about, tance from been misled tionably time the comer 12 veyor testified meant more in which adherence to the because patented.” cate on lands think, to defeat the reason and a mound. While structed [15] The for the reason plats base permittеd with reference to which call for a well-marked dignity admits he never the real and that Ordinarily, have their effect equally that when he called for a evidently point, line was the control have made on the official which is holding the sod than the call for the southwest 15 miles the calls of the recognized facts clear that if the sustains survey. due neglect within notes to the of 'said blocks mound it is trae that purely line, by before call weight, period. saw call for the away, object statute for it is contended only survey field notes in the General Land the latter lines to make that exami- circumstances which While this block known, and knew original opinion, undertaking patent, priority descriptive course and dis of the rule. We case is one The an unmarked three months’ rule would be also Summerfield peals. Reversed, and cause remanded. Land be located it has been call viz., returning mound it actually the sur is of no criticiz unques nothing date of conten Office, block W. to lo- use such call. con been Tenant, 0-3 for Judgment Thatcher question govern We cited in the holding tween veys Dig. &wkey;164.] No. 1 on the to a tenant to maintain stairway, tonio, could not B.R. building, lant, ages Landlord —Condition [Ed. Note.—For other to Tenant. again Arnold, Cozby FLY, Action Landlord The owner think opinions holding appellant. instituted Minor, Judge. the calls in this case. C. fully actually stairway. of the from District they, appellee. a trial of J. Boon Lilly in Stafford v. Matthews, E. M. Heath anticipated are discussed. *7 and Tenant appurtenant of an office original opinion, led into the back plaintiff, together O. too established hand, M. Peyton, the boundaries Hunter, Blum, appellee the cause resulted long 630-637, 639, 641; The conflict Fitzhugh, Court, that the tenant building with These cases rule, safe condition back and defendant against to the offices in the King, Tex. of San see Landlord and Premises — be action for dam on the Bexar quoted yard, sustain owed no D.D. authorities created supra, maps of section. —Duties' Antonio, San An- County; approve of sur- since it of 2, appel Book, Duty here. in a our be- ap- Key-Numbered Digests cases see same and KEY-NUMBER Indexes «©s^For section 1 suit form of sought wherein was tie the northwest cor- try trespass title, to recover sections Nos. ner of that section to Tap C-3, Tyler Railway 5, in 3 and Company surveys, M-8 and No. away and 15 miles county. in Hale The two respectively, the calls for M-13 and M-8 “descriptive calls” not “locative calls.” land are described metes and sections of Boundaries, [Ed. Note.—For other see petition. prayed also Plaintiff bounds Dig. 3-41; rents. The death <&wkey;83Presumptions — 12. Evidence Of- Ralph suggested, D. Crawford and Julia ficial Acts —Field Notes —Statute. September 1914, intervened, Crawford, Sayles’ Under Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 5306, requiring surveyors alleging plat surveys were the owners their thereof with district send sketches Ralph Crawford, the devisees land and general field notes to the allegations plaintiff’s petition. adopting office, presumed that when the state McCormack answered Defendant ing disclaim- issued a in the case of a block for except subdivision thereof lands to all the sued a cer- <@t^>For Key-NumberedDigests see other cases same and KEY-NUMBERin all and Indexes Tes.) CRAWFORD McCORMACK ting pits mile portion bis answer mound and two the end of each tain thereof described party, intersection with Jot Gunter’s by pleaded bounds, and as to metes morning 1st the which had us left June guilty denial. at an earth monument established on special jury upon is- evening ease May 30, was tried before said monument after- wards 347, verdict, sues. court ren- Based but there an error of one- Ralph dered D. and Julia eastings us, half mile in and as and $327 Crawford the lands in issue chasing thought they had been wild horses rents. oth made it. no have recollection
Notes
full it is sufficient to that all state east, diagonally ran south 45 across ten sec- touch tions, putting pits prop- a mound and two at the monument, block 0-3 sod called for or the points for er corner of each At section. remaining surveys them. The in said block end of the tenth section I established earth miles, monument. Then I ran es- preced- begin J-K call next tablishing each pits a mound and two at the end of ing it in its numerical order. The field mile, continuing east on mile the eleventh January 14, notes of this block are dated chains, creek, at 38 crossed a was after- Running Water; known filed in wards established a the General Land 80 chains large monument, earth which was February 11, 1878. The field notes of afterwards as the northeast corner of cor- J-K 2 and J-K also call for the * ** survey 9, block J-K. All the blocks Ct3, ners sections in M-6, wherever the M-13, M-15, and C-3 were plotted run, in after these lines were and wher- blocks touch the of block 0-3. ever touched these base fines the corners
trolled
flict arises between the calls in the field
lines of a the calls of a its due prior survey weight;
block and the testi
and 'the rule cannot be con
notes of the various
facts probably Under Rule admitted, influenced the 62-A (149
surveys composing
S. W. because immaterial such admission has in its x), none findings. of the (Tex, 181 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER 67 and 68 of block M-13 on ion the cision, and we are forced to adhere n maps original holding. Five adjoining dated, him and in district, district or oncе in such district or January 26, 1858), appear statement of facts. Some fully reviewed ered the cases as the matters sustain them are errors [9] We did not discuss in the The motion for urged reproduction $500 in the reversing to send Yernon’s others bear date complained some to be- every 'county, in the motion should control same, blocks, 0-4, S-l, J-K, On Motion for from the Land provisions subjects sketches instances 3 months all event Sayles’ the which we urged effect at county, judgment. is therefore affirmed. presented. to that makes it the ol would the General Land entire special rehearing he should thereof, and the Civil Statutes showing sections Rehearing. any length. introduction date; cited and record and сonsid- neighborhood the north. of them are not justify We brief in so far him arguments appear fail to original opin practically have care- this court to a which it and the requires (Act of Article J-K Office; These, do every fine our de- so. to lar boundaries, in such case it grants. ness survey actually made, ties, looked at the thing granted then the such not believed that the lines and a pears that it is grantee such connection with Boon language: to the courts in the and, all matters of ent, W. 85 come in contact considered as entitled to much credit the must lar are intended to indicate the care rectory, are divided into two classes: though, must reason “Nor ; objects upon pаrticular land, in order to determine what conveyed if it be not shown that no and masterful and the transactions to which the while the former are called for case, Finberg give way yield that no actual out or lead a rules, be, (4), it is that the can there consisting Hunter, to be about which the locator corners can be exactness, from a ‘The when a will be special of the tract location and identification and intended deemed boundaries of the conveyed by to them.” latter, consisting said: the lines or corners the facts 62 rules for the determination becomes Gilbert, applied, special presumed any longer consideration of grasp, by patent locativе calls. presumed. same rules person necessary special rivers, have been so survey, necessary contained locative with his usual when it merely was ever precise into locative lakes, Judge Stayton Descriptive' been issued on be, particular land when patent. It and hence are to state repeat them; calls, regard very particu- called for in is, however, intended to often stated boundary without he uses this clearly calls, region doubt as these, particu- look to of such former, govern creeks, If, made, or cleax*- di- land, par- pat- any ap- in in
to the introduction of all the surveys, joining surveys veyors. notes of lished they corroborative we thе supra (9): troduced and the location ry out the manifest intention to make a rectan- made the eastern lines and corners not what was understood at the time to be the rela- tive the Barnett gle survey according ner gular survey, occupying with reference to the evidence, Scott, ever since the and the action a marizing “Numerous “The prior survey; shown, originally those who assisted call and opinion, according actually surveyed position fact, might Robinson the relative maps, the different him a few weeks We think as well as these what had be worth as recognized receivable in the calls laying fixed and Judge willing of these of the Scott southeast corner and objeсtions to distance. of one of those subsequently to course and but if position Doss, that, off the eastern Gould location of the field notes of the two sections of block are to concede corner. placed.” throwing light were made on the of an we if and making afterwards, show Finberg indicated on the uses previously marked, admit maps produced in section Rejecting the Barnett were adjoining survey distance, the land parties, himself when the field subsequent locate that J-K is calls for whatever such language: and show have been Gilbert, in sum- said in the cor- the sin- we car- reasonably given or as trial pub- sur- suit ad- P., in- contiguous not to tion of J-K 3 authorized testimony 1. Landlord purposes, stairs when Tenant, harm, was a mere no ed stairs to reach known to the der the (Court Duty to Licensee. lord’s [Ed. Note.—For permission agree Where the tenant actually though building of Civil permit him to encounter a hidden BOOK v. obligation law, as to the condition Duties block C-3 in safe returning licensee, to whom the owner owed as to one invited the owner is Summerfield, owner, or to Dig. §§ Appeals was not and secure condition. Jan. HEATH. river injured by falling Tenant Condition maintain the 10, 1916.) motion on the of an office after his 630-637, 639, 641; Rehearing of Texas. San Antonio. janitor liable, the rear for willfully <&wkey;164 (No. 5551.) <&wkey;164 Land- is overruled. see Landlord and since the tenant to use bath, the owner of Premises building secur- to submit Denied premises stairs, except admit down cause him can-We the back bathing ques- peril in a the- un-