Reeves v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 02 December 1884 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1774. |
| Citation | 62 Tex. 550 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | REUBEN A. REEVES v. W. D. ROBERTS ET AL. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Van Zandt. Tried below before the Hon. Felix J. McCord.
Berge & Russell and V. T. McChesny, for appellant, cited: Booth v. Upshur, 26 Tex., 70;Stafford v. King, 30 Tex., 257;Bolton v. Lann, 16 Tex., 96;Hubert v. Bartlett, 9 Tex., 97;Robertson v. Mosson, 26 Tex., 248.
D. W. Crow, for appellees.
This cause was tried without a jury, and the court found that the lands which the defendants claimed in their several answers were not a part of the Welch grant through which the appellant claims title.
If this finding is supported by sufficient evidence to sustain it, properly admitted, then it becomes unnecessary to consider such questions as relate to the titles of the defendants through the grants under which they claim.
There is no controversy as to the point at which the northeast corner of the Welch grant, under the calls of the patent, is to be found; all parties seem to acquiesce in its existence at a certain place.
According to the calls in the patent to the Welch grant, it forms a square, each of its sides being five thousand and ninety-nine varas long, the east and west lines running north and south, and the north and south lines running east and west.
From the northeast corner of the grant the line and the southeast corner are thus determined in the patent: “Thence south six hundred and seventy-five varas, line tree, post oak, fifteen inches in diameter; five thousand and ninety-nine varas to a post, from which a hickory twelve inches in diameter bears north eighty-seven degrees west sixteen and six-tenths varas, and a post oak eighteen inches in diameter bears north nineteen and one-half west nine and five-tenths varas.”
If the eastern line of the Welch grant is to be thus run, then it is clear that the appellant is not entitled to recover the land claimed by the defendants; but it is claimed by the appellant that the line was not originally so run, and that in fact the true southeast corner of the Welch grant, as established by the surveyor who made the original survey, is to be found at a point about seven hundred varas directly east of the point at which it will be found if the eastern line of the grant be run in accordance with the calls in the patent.
The point thus claimed by the appellant as the southeast corner of the Welch grant will be at the northeast corner of a grant made to N. Killough, which in the patent to that grant is described as a corner from which a post oak fifteen inches in diameter bears south forty-five and one-half degrees west one and nine-tenths varas, and a hickory twelve inches in diameter bears north eighty-seven degrees west sixteen and six-tenths varas.
The bearing trees called for in the patent to the Welch grant at its southeast corner are not now found, but a witness who made a survey of the eastern line of that grant, about sixteen years before the trial of the cause, stated that at the time he made the survey he found the stumps of a post oak and hickory at the place where in accordance with the calls of the patent they ought to be. This same witness testified that about the time he surveyed the east line, being at the spot where the southeast corner of the grant will be found if the survey be made in accordance with the patent, one Tinnen, an old surveyor, told him that he had been at that place twenty years before that time, and recognized it as the southeast corner of the grant, that he had seen the bearing trees and the marks on them often, while they were standing, and that in making surveys in the neighborhood he had made that a beginning point some twenty-five times.
There is a great deal of testimony tending to show that the corner claimed by the defendants has been reputed to be the true southeast corner of the Welch survey by persons living in that vicinity for a great many years, and that this was never controverted until very recently. Such evidence, and the evidence of declarations made by Tinnen in connection with his acts and means of knowledge, reaching back as they did for a period of thirty-six years prior to the trial, in connection with the other evidence in the cause was admissible for the purpose of establishing an ancient boundary. Stroud v. Springfield, 28 Tex., 661.
The Welch survey was made in 1841. In addition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tracy v. Eggleston
...in possession at the time they were made are admissible in a contest as to the locations of such corners and lines. The case of Reeves v. Roberts, 62 Tex. 550, is very like the case at bar. A witness was on the stand, who had made a survey of the land in question. He testified that one Tinn......
-
Kelly v. Kelly
...will not constitute a vacancy subject to resale. Booker v. Hart, 77 Tex. 146, 12 S. W. 16; Freeman v. Mahoney, 57 Tex. 622; Reeves v. Roberts, 62 Tex. 550; Fagan v. Stoner, 67 Tex. 286, 3 S. W. 44; Lilly v. Blum, 70 Tex. 704, 6 S. W. We know where the lines of the L. L. Kelly tract were act......
-
Williams v. Ford
...do not feel authorized to disturb the finding of the court. Railway Co. v. Dawson, 62 Tex. 261; Patton v. Gregory, 21 Tex. 514; Reeves v. Roberts, 62 Tex. 550; Floyd v. Rice, 28 Tex. 342; Stroud v. Springfield, Id. 676; Maverick v. Maury, 79 Tex. 443, 444, 15 S. W. 686; Railway Co. v. Lee, ......
-
Cox v. Piwonka
...unless it could be said that as a matter of law there was no evidence of probative value to support such judgment. The case of Reeves v. Roberts, 62 Tex. 550, was a boundary suit in which the testimony of the witnesses as to the lines and corners was in conflict. In his opinion Judge Stayto......