State v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co.
| Decision Date | 27 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 8489.,8489. |
| Citation | 110 S.W.2d 953 |
| Parties | STATE v. ATLANTIC OIL PRODUCING CO. et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Travis County; C. A. Wheeler, Judge.
Suit in trespass to try title by the State of Texas against the Atlantic Oil Producing Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and the State appeals.
Affirmed.
Wm. McCraw, Atty. Gen., and Scott Gaines, C. M. Kennedy, and Russell Rentfro, Asst. Attys., Gen., for the State.
Greenwood, Moody & Robertson, of Austin, E. R. Hastings, of Tulsa, Okl., Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson & Young, of St. Louis, Mo., Andrews, Kelly, Kurth & Campbell, of Houston, Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, of Dallas, P. G. McElwee and R. E. Seagler, both of Houston, Sam Mason, of Shreveport, La., George M. Conner, of Ft. Worth, C. F. Richards, of
Lockhart, W. M. White, Jr., of Mexia, Blalock, Blalock, Lohman & Blalock and J. M. Slator, Jr., all of Houston, David B. Trammell, of Ft. Worth, S. M. Leftwich, of Dallas, and David Proctor, of Houston, for appellees.
The State brought this suit in trespass to try title, and for damages, against the Atlantic Oil Producing Company and numerous other oil companies and individuals. It sought to recover as vacant lands some 500 acres consisting of narrow strips along the course of the Sabine river in Gregg county about 12 miles southwest of Longview, and damages in the sum of $7,800,000 for oil taken therefrom. The case was tried to a jury, but at the close of the evidence the trial court instructed a verdict for the defendants and rendered judgment accordingly, from which judgment the State has appealed.
Appellant presents in its brief 13 propositions supported by citations of numerous authorities and quotations therefrom, most of which are clearly correct statements of the rules of law asserted. We do not deem it necessary to discuss most of them for the reason that the sole question presented is whether the Sabine river constitutes the south boundary of the Francis W. Johnson survey in Gregg county; or whether the numerous meander lines located by course and distance as set out in the patent constitute its south boundary.
The Francis W. Johnson survey was patented to her assignees on March 7, 1873, and called for 3,501 acres. The certificate under which it was located called for a league and labor, and, after the Johnson survey was carved out of it, the balance of such acreage was located and patented elsewhere in Gregg and Rusk counties. We are here concerned, however, only with the proper location of the Johnson survey. This survey is very irregular in shape, there being 33 different calls for course and distance on its south boundary extending along the meanders of the Sabine river a distance of approximately 10 miles. Its width east and west, according to the field notes of the patent, was approximately 4 miles; and the width north and south, or extending back from the river, varied from about 2 miles to less than half a mile from the Sabine river. The west, north, and east lines of the Johnson survey, consisting of 23 different course and distance calls, were common boundary lines between the Johnson and 12 other surveys surrounding it on those sides. The general course of the Sabine river in this area was from northwest to southeast. Manifestly the delineation of the outer boundaries of the entire tract presents a problem resembling a jigsaw puzzle.
The records of the general land office show that the field notes of the original survey of the Johnson, made by Scott, surveyor, were filed in the general land office in August, 1861, and the plat thereof, prepared by the surveyor and attached to his field notes, showed the survey to be bounded by the Sabine river for its entire south boundary. The land commissioner rejected these field notes on the ground that they did not close. Nothing further appears to have been done until September 18, 1871, when corrected field notes for said survey were filed in the general land office, on which the indorsement was made, "Also original field notes must be returned to compare the endorsement thereon with these field notes," and a further indorsement indicating two errors in calls. To these field notes was also attached a plat showing the Sabine river as constituting the south boundary of said survey. Another set of corrected field notes, embodied in the patent, were filed in the general land office on March 27, 1873, which were approved by the land commissioner and patent issued thereon. This set of field notes did not have a plat attached showing the location of said survey. All of said sets of field notes were based upon the survey made in 1861. All of them placed this survey in Upshur county, 18 miles southeast from the town of Gilmer, the first and second sets of field notes describing it as located "on the north bank of the Sabine River"; and the third set, on which it was patented, as located "on the north side of the Sabine River." It is not controverted that in all of said field notes, the southeast or lower corner of said survey and the southwest or upper river corner were located on the Sabine river. For purposes of comparison we copy below the calls for the south boundary line of said survey as made in each of the three sets of field notes filed in the general land office:
Original Field First Corrected Final Field
Notes Field Notes Notes
1 Thence south with the Thence south with Thence south with the west
West line of No. 245 at the West line of No. line of No. 245 at 1370 vrs
1370 vrs. to a stake on 245 at 1370 vrs. the to a stake on the north bank
the North bank of the Sabine north bank of the Sabine of the Sabine River, from
River, from which a River, a stake for which a maple bears S 33 W
maple bears S 33 West a corner, from which 4-2/10 vrs., a Pine bears S 83
4-2/10 vrs. a hornbeam a maple bears S 33 W W 4 vrs
bears S 83 W 4 vrs; 4-2/10 vrs. a hornbeam
beam bears S 83 W 4
vrs
2 Thence West with said Thence up said river Thence W with said river at
river at 338 vrs.; with its meanders; 338 vrs
West 315 vrs
3 Thence S 32 W 200 vrs; S 32 W 200 vrs; Thence South 32 W 200 vrs;
4 Thence S 50 W 366 vrs; S 50 W 366 vrs; Thence S 50 W 366 vrs;
5 Thence S 20 W 301 vrs; S 20 W 300 vrs; Thence South 20 W 301 vrs;
6 Thence S 40 W 1455 vrs; S 40 W 1455; Thence S 40 W 1455 vrs;
7 Thence W 516 vrs; W 516; Thence West 516 vrs;
8 Thence North at 100 vrs; North 100 vrs; Thence North at 108 vrs;
9 Thence N 45 W 534 vrs; N 45 W 314; Thence N 45 W 340 vrs;
10 Thence N 10 W 200 vrs; N 10 W 200; Thence N 10 W 220 vrs;
11 Thence N 50 W 180 vrs; N 50 W 180; Thence N 50 W 200 vrs;
12 Thence N 20 W 300 vrs; N 20 W 300; Thence N 20 W 310 vrs;
13 Thence N 70 W 976 vrs; N 70 W 976; Thence N 70 W 976 vrs;
14 Thence N 75 E 450 vrs; N 75 E 450 vrs; Thence N 75 E 450 vrs;
15 Thence N 52 E 446 vrs; N 52 E 446; Thence N 52 E 446 vrs;
16 Thence N 85 E 506 vrs; N 85 E 506; Thence N 85 E 506 vrs;
17 Thence N 35 E 208 vrs; N 35 E 208; Thence N 35 E 208 vrs;
18 Thence N 35 W 204 vrs; N 35 W 204; Thence N 35 W 204 vrs;
19 Thence W 356 vrs; West 356; Thence West at 556 vrs;
20 Thence North at 1000 vrs; North 906 vrs; Thence North at 966 vrs;
21 Thence N 25 E 760 vrs. N 25 E 760; Thence N 25 E 760 vrs;
22 Thence N 63 E 140 vrs; N 63 E 140; Thence N 63 E 140 vrs;
23 Thence N 80 E 525 vrs; N 80 E 525; Thence N 80 E 500 vrs;
24 Thence N 30 E 200 vrs; N 30 E 200; Thence N 20 E 200 vrs;
25 Thence N 10 E 300 vrs; N 10 E 300; Thence N 10 E 300 vrs;
26 Thence N 35 W 200 vrs; N 35 W 200; Thence N 35 W 200 vrs;
27 Thence N 80 W 516 vrs; N 80 W 516; Thence N 80 W 516 vrs;
28 Thence S 60 W 638 vrs; S 60 W 638; Thence S 60 W 638 vrs;
29 Thence N 45 W 436 vrs; N 45 W 436; Thence N 45 W 436 vrs;
30 Thence North 766 vrs; North 766; Thence N 826 vrs;
31 Thence W 495 vrs; West 495; Thence West 495 vrs;
32 Thence S 38 W 1212 vrs; S 38 W 1212; Thence S 38 W 1212 vrs;
33 Thence N 50 W 1115 vrs; N 50 W 1115; Thence N 50 W 1115 vrs;
34 Thence West at 1275 vrs. West at 1275 vrs. the Thence West at 1275 vrs. to
to the S. E. corner of a S. E. corner of a survey the S.E. corner of a survey
survey made for Hitson made for Hitson made for Hitson Brown from
Brown from which a Brown from which a which a white oak bears N
white oak bears N 82 E white oak bears N 82 82 E 14
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strayhorn v. Jones
...212 S.W. 271, no writ history; McCombs v. McKaughan, Tex.Civ.App.1946, 195 S.W.2d 194, wr. ref.; State v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co., Tex.Civ.App.1937, 110 S.W.2d 953, wr. ref.; State v. Arnim, Tex.Civ.App.1943, 173 S.W.2d 503, 508(3-7), ref. w. o. m.; 7 Tex.Jur. 128, Sec. 9; 11 C.J.S., Bou......
-
Strayhorn v. Jones
...v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Tex.Civ.App., 257 S.W.2d 813; McCombs v. McKaughan, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 194; State v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 953; 11 C.J.S., Boundaries, § 30 a and b, pages That part of Sections Three and Five lying North and West of the Salt Fo......
-
Thomas Jordan, Inc. v. Skelly Oil Co.
...the surveyor's plat and other facts in the case, necessarily implies that the river constitutes the boundary. State v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co. (Tex.Civ.App.), 110 S.W.2d 953, writ refused. '7. I conclude that the surveyor's plat, drawn by him on his official notes of the Clark Simmons as......
-
Hejl v. Wirth
...Dutton v. Vierling, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W. 450, no writ history; Stover v. Gilbert, 112 Tex. 429, 247 S.W. 841; State v. Atlantic Oil Prod. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 953, writ refused; Strayhorn v. Jones, 157 Tex. 136, 300 S.W.2d 623; County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46, 90 U......