Heard v. State, A-1162.

• Decision Date: 19 July 1947
• Docket Number: No. A-1162.,A-1162.
• Parties: HEARD et al. v. STATE et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 344

204 S.W.2d 344

HEARD et al. v. STATE et al.

No. A-1162.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 19, 1947.

Rehearing Denied October 1, 1947.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Third Supreme Judicial District.

Suit by the State and another against Mrs. Fannie V. W. Heard and others in trespass to try title to land, wherein the W. R. R. Oil Company and another intervened. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 199 S.W.2d 191, reversing judgment entered by District Court and remanding cause with instructions, the defendants bring error.

Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals affirmed and cause remanded to District Court with instructions.

Hunt & Lawler, and John F. Heard, all of Houston, and Dan Moody, J. B. Robertson and George E. Shelley, guardian ad litem, all of Austin, for petitioners Davenport and others.

Powell, Wirtz, Rauhut & Gideon, of Austin, and Blades, Chiles, Moore & Kennerly, Fred W. Moore and Wm. Sears McGee, all of Houston, for petitioner Houston Oil Co.

Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., and F. D. Brown, and Ben H. Rice, III, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent State.

Davis, Hall, Clemens & Knight, J. R. Davis and J. C. Hall, all of San Antonio, and Critz, Kuykendall, Bauknight, Mann & Stevenson, Richard Critz and F. L. Kuykendall, all of Austin, for respondent town of Refugio.

Zellner Eldridge, Sanford, King, Estes & Cantwell, Conan Cantwell, Shank & Stokes and Ralph Shank, all of Dallas, for W. R. R. Oil Co.

Sanford, King, Estes & Cantwell and Conan Cantwell, all of Dallas, for respondent Jack E. Gaines.

SHARP, Justice.

The State of Texas and the Town of Refugio, a municipal corporation created under the laws of Texas, brought this suit against Mrs. Fannie V. W. Heard, Houston Oil Company, and others, in trespass to try title to 15.65 acres of land, a part of the bed of Mission River in Refugio County. The W. R. R. Oil Company and Jack E. Gaines, owners of an oil and gas lease on the land sued for, intervened. The defendants claimed title to said land under the Ten-year Statute of Limitation, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5510, by virtue of the claim acquired by the Town of Refugio under the provisions of Article 5414a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, commonly referred to as the Small Bill. The trial was before the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered that the plaintiffs take nothing, and that the defendants be quieted in their limitation title to all the land involved. An appeal was taken, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the cause with instructions, holding that the evidence did not support the judgment of the trial court. 199 S.W.2d 191.

The land in suit is within the boundary lines of a four league grant made in 1834 by the State of Coahuila and Texas, Republic of Mexico, and is a part of the bed of Mission River, which traverses the original four league grant. The grant was surveyed for the Town of Refugio in the form of a square, of which the public square was the center. The boundary lines were indicated by natural objects and by certain artificial landmarks. Town of Refugio v. Byrne, 25 Tex. 193. The Town of Refugio thereafter sold and conveyed most of the land granted. Petitioners Heard et al. own a tract within the grant consisting of 600 acres. The Mission River runs almost through the center of this tract. The land in suit, however, is only a part of the bed within the Heard tract, and is the most western 15.65 acres. The eastern 15 or 16 acres are not involved in this suit.

Petitioners do not claim title to this land under a grant or patent. They claim title to the portion of the bed of Mission River involved here solely by limitation. They admit title to the bed of Mission River in the State of Texas prior to March 3, 1929, the effective date of the Small Bill. Article 5414a. They admit title in the Town of Refugio subsequent to such date under the provisions of the Small Bill, and that they have no title unless they established one by the Ten-year Statute of Limitation.

The case of Heard v. Town of Refugio, 129 Tex. 349, 103 S.W.2d 728, involved the title to the bed of Mission River, which flowed through the land granted to the Town of Refugio by the Mexican Government. In that case the history of this grant was exhaustively reviewed by Justice Smedley, speaking for this Court, and it was held that Mission River is a navigable stream and that the title to that portion of the bed of Mission River which lies within the outer boundaries of the four leagues of land surveyed for the Town of Refugio in 1834 did not pass to the town by or under the grant then made, but that such title was acquired and held by the State of Texas. It was also held that only the Town of Refugio and the State of Texas held any interest in the title to the bed of Mission River within the four league grant. If the Town of Refugio acquired any interest in the title to the bed of Mission. River, it was under the Small Bill. Article 5414a.

The case was remanded to the district court for determination of the rights of the State of Texas and the Town of Refugio in the river bed under the provisions of the Small Bill. Specific instructions to guide the trial court in determining such rights were set out in the opinion. It was ordered that if the State of Texas became a party to the suit and the issue was determined in conformity with the rule announced by this Court, judgment would be rendered partitioning the entire river bed within the tract between the State of Texas and the Town of Refugio.

The State of Texas became a party to the suit, and in its pleadings claimed the bed of Mission River within the four league grant. The Town of Refugio likewise claimed the entire river bed. The issue was joined between the State of Texas and the Town of Refugio. In view of the holding of this Court that only the State of Texas and the Town of Refugio had any title, right, or interest in the bed of Mission River within the original grant, all other parties were dismissed from that suit. Thereafter the case was called for trial, and the trial court, without a jury, heard the pleadings and the evidence, including the testimony of P. G. Young, County Surveyor of Refugio County, who testified that the land granted to the Town of Refugio was supposed to contain four leagues or 17,713.6 acres of land; that he had made an office survey of the grant from reliable data available to him, and found that the total acreage within the boundary lines, including the river bed, was 17,740 acres, or an excess of 26.4 acres; that the total acreage in the river bed within the grant was 132.29 acres; and that it was necessary to give to the Town of Refugio 105.89 acres out of the bed to make up its complement of 17,713.6 acres, so that the Town of Refugio would own four-fifths of the river bed and the State one-fifth. The trial court on December 17, 1937, entered judgment that the Town of Refugio held title to four-fifths and the State of Texas held title to one-fifth of the bed of Mission River within the original grant to the Town of Refugio by the Mexican Government. No appeal was taken from that judgment, and it became final.

In this suit respondents alleged that on January 1, 1938, the Town of Refugio owned an undivided four-fifths and the State of Texas an undivided one-fifth of the bed of Mission River within the grant, same being subject to an oil, gas, and mineral lease emanating from respondents, and which mineral lease is now vested in Jack E. Gaines and the W. R. R. Oil Company as assignees.

Petitioners do not assert that they held any title to the bed of Mission River at the time judgment was rendered on December 17, 1937, in Cause No. 1172. They claim that they are not bound by the determination of the title involved in that suit, because they were not parties thereto, and that the judgment entered therein was void. They assert however, that they hold title to all this land by virtue of the Ten-year Statute of Limitation. The trial court held that the State of Texas held no interest in this land, and entered judgment for petitioners on this issue.

Neither the State of Texas nor the Town of Refugio questioned the judgment rendered on December 17, 1937. They accepted that judgment as fixing their rights in the bed of Mission River, and they are now asserting such rights in this suit. Under the ruling of this Court in the case of Heard v. Town of Refugio, supra, the trial court unquestionably had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties in that case. The judgment shows on its face that it was rendered after a hearing and upon evidence. If the judgment of the, trial court is void it is subject to attack in a collateral proceeding; but if the judgment be merely erroneous, that is not sufficient ground to vitiate it. Martin v. Sheppard et al., Tex.Sup., 201 S.W.2d 810; Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398, 168 S.W.2d 216.

The recent case of Martin v. Sheppard et al., supra, involved the validity of a judgment in which Mrs. Martin and her children recovered the sum of $12,500 against the State. No appeal was taken from that judgment. Justice Hickman, speaking for the Court, said : "The State takes the position that the judgment of the trial court is void. If that court did not have jurisdiction, both of the parties and of the subject matter of the litigation, the judgment is void and subject to attack in this collateral proceeding. If, on the other hand, the court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, the judgment is not void, however erroneous it may be."

It is undisputed that petitioners claim only the title held by the Town of Refugio. If they acquired any interest in the river bed by limitation, it was subsequent to the judgment rendered on December 17, 1937. If that judgment is void, the title to the river bed is undetermined, and it is held by both the State of Texas and the Town of Refugio. If the judgment is not void, then the Town...