Alderman v. Alderman

Decision Date07 November 1956
Docket NumberNo. 13015,13015
Citation296 S.W.2d 312
PartiesW. W. ALDERMAN, Appellant, v. Ezra F. ALDERMAN, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

L. B. Cooper, Cotulla, Woodrow Curtis, Pearsall, for appellant.

Fritz C. Sorrell, Pearsall, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is a boundary dispute. After suit was filed, the parties agreed to an arbitration. This appeal involves the correctness of the trial court's action in accepting the award of the arbitrators and rendering judgment thereon despite the protests of appellant, contained in several motions filed by him.

Appellant, W. W. Alderman, filed suit against appellee, Ezra F. Alderman, seeking to establish the true boundary line between certain surveys owned by appellant and those owned by appellee, all being situated in La Salle County, Texas. The petition was filed on June 19, 1948, and remained on the docket of the district court until September 3, 1951, at which time the parties entered into a stipulation which was in effect a common law arbitration agreement. This appeal turns upon the interpretation of this agreement. The stipulation recited the existence of the boundary dispute and expressly stated that the purpose of the agreement was to establish the true boundary between the tracts of land owned by appellant and appellee, respectively. To this end, the parties agreed that D. W. Cobb, County Surveyor of La Salle County and Frank, J. Schorp, County Surveyor of Frio County, together with C. A. Douglas, State Licensed Land Surveyor of Webb County, should go upon the ground 'and do such work as may be deemed necessary by the last named State Licensed Land Surveyor, adopting and applying the established rules and laws of surveying and construction, following the calls of the various Patents involved, or any and all other legal evidence, for the purpose of establishing the common boundary line between plaintiff's land and defendant's land above described, and for the purpose of determining whether there are any overlaps between said surveys in which latter event effect will be given to the boundary of the senior survey which is overlapped by the junior, and that the majority vote of said three named surveyors shall be and is hereby accepted by plaintiff, W. W. Alderman, and defendant, Ezra F. Alderman, as determining the true and correct boundary line between said lands; the report of the majority of said surveyors shall be returned in this cause, signed by them, reflecting and properly describing said boundary, and such report and findings shall be incorporated in the judgment in this cause fixing said boundary and said judgment shall vest plaintiff, W. W. Alderman, as against defendant, Ezra F. Alderman, with the title to all of said premises North of said boundary, subject to the reserved free royalty belonging to the Public School Fund of the State of Texas, and shall vest defendant, Ezra F. Alderman, as against plaintiff, W. W. Alderman, with the title to all of said premises south of said line so established by a majority of said named surveyors.' (Italics ours.)

This stipulation was approved by the Attorney General as the representative of the State of Texas, which was made a party to the suit, because of material interests held by it and the possible conflict of surveys. Apparently no surveying was done under the agreement for some time, as it appears that on August 25, 1955, the appellee, Ezra F. Alderman, filed a motion to vacate the agreement because of nonaction thereunder. The record discloses no ruling by the court upon this motion, but it evidently stimulated some action on the part of the surveyors and they commenced making a survey in accordance with the terms of the stipulation.

On October 17, 1955, and before the surveyors had made a report, the appellant, W. W. Alderman, filed a motion to vacate the arbitration agreement upon the grounds that the surveyors were not complying with the terms of the stipulation in making their survey of the disputed boundary line. It is inferable that a difference of opinion had developed among the surveyors, which naturally became known to the parties and resulted in appellant's motion attacking the theories of construction adopted by the majority of the arbiters. One month later, on November 17th, C. A. Douglas and Frank J. Schorp filed their report, together with field notes for the boundary line between the tracts of the respective parties and a map showing the location thereof. D. W. Cobb being in disagreement with Douglas and Schorp, refused to concur in their report. On November 19, 1955, appellant, W. W. Alderman, filed two motions, designated as the first and ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 18 November 1992
    ...for determination in substitution for the tribunals provided by the ordinary processes of the law. Alderman v. Alderman, 296 S.W.2d 312, 315 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1956, writ ref'd) (quoting 6 C.J.S. Arbitration and Award § 1). Arbitration has been sanctioned in Texas since at least the......
  • Southland Royalty Co. v. Pan American Petro. Corp.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 29 January 1964
    ...provisions should, if possible, be so interpreted as to harmonize with each other.' 12 Am.Jur. 112, Contracts, § 241.' Alderman v. Alderman, Tex.Civ.App., 296 S.W.2d 312 (writ ref.). See also Moody v. Moody, 154 Tex. 114, 274 S.W.2d One is tempted to join in the majority opinion solely beca......
  • Neece v. A.A.A. Realty Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 18 February 1959
    ...Christmann, Tex., 303 S.W.2d 341, 344. Associate Justice Norvell at a time past stated the rule in this language in Alderman v. Alderman, Tex.Civ.App., 296 S.W.2d 312, 315: 'It is axiomatic that, 'An agreement should be interpreted as a whole and the meaning gathered from the entire context......
  • Manes v. Dallas Baptist College, 20974
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 6 July 1982
    ...of their own choice, and by consent, submit the controversy to these arbitrators for determination. Alderman v. Alderman, 296 S.W.2d 312, 315 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1956, writ ref'd.); see 6 C.J.S. Arbitration Sec. 2 (1975); 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award Sec. 1 (1962); 6 Tex. Ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 16-4 Arbitration and Award
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Commercial Causes of Action Claims Title Chapter 16 Affirmative Defenses
    • Invalid date
    ...or such gross mistake as would imply bad faith or failure to exercise an honest judgment.31 -------- Notes:[26] Alderman v. Alderman, 296 S.W.2d 312, 315 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1956, writ ref'd).[27] Albert v. Albert, 391 S.W.2d 186, 189 (Tex Civ. App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.).[......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT