Strong v. Sunray DX Oil Co., 222
Decision Date | 04 December 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 222,222 |
Citation | 448 S.W.2d 728 |
Parties | Guerry STRONG, Appellant, v. SUNRAY DX OIL COMPANY et al., Appellees. . Corpus Christi |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Sterling Holloway, Austin, Mills, Shirley & McMicken, Preston Shirley, Galveston, for appellant.
Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen., of the State of Texas, J. Milton Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Texas, intervenor.
Claude C. Roberts, Houston, for Industrial Gas Co.
M. Darwin Kirk, J. P. Greve, Rufus N. McKnight, Jr., Tulsa, Okl. for Sun Oil Co.
Richard D. Cullen, Victoria, and Vinson Elkins, Weems & Searls, Thomas Fletcher, Dave McNeill, Jr., Houston, for Sun Oil Co., United Gas Pipe Line Co., Union Producing Co., and Monsanto Co.
R. H. Whilden, C. E. Nadeau, Houston, for Shell Oil Co.
David R. Latchford, R. T. Wilkinson, Jr., Houston, for Mobil Oil Corp., Republic Natural Gas Co., Albantu Oil & Gas Corp., East Wall Street Corp., Long Point Corp., Mon-Dak Oil Corp., The Chase Manhattan Bank and William B. Bateman, Trustee.
Dillard W. Baker, Walter B. Morgan, Houston, for Humble Oil & Refining Co.
Guittard, Henderson, Jones & Lewis, Frank Guittard, Victoria, for C. K. McCan, Emily Herder, Margaret V. Lowery, Eileen Sullivan, W. H . Crain, Jr., and others (Landowners known as J. A. McFaddin Estate) .
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The original dissenting opinion is withdrawn and this opinion sustaining appellees' motion for rehearing and affirming the judgment of the trial court is substituted therefor as the majority opinion of this Court.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the trial court's directed verdict of no vacancy existing on defendant's lands. A paramount issue involves the correctness of the directed verdict and therefore requires consideration from the viewpoint most favorable to appellant on all the evidence of probative value. The conclusions reached in this opinion are drawn from a careful consideration of all evidence, admitted or excluded, which was reviewed and discussed in the various briefs of all the parties.
The appellant's petition describes two areas by metes and bounds as being the alleged vacant land. The upper or northern area of 4353.5 acres called the 'A' Vacancy is located by appellant as being between the Traviesa Grant and the Vairin Grant. (See Plat 1). The lower or southern area of 2618.34 acres called the 'B' Vacancy is located primarily within the original Traviesa Grant. (See Plat 1.) The area of 460.45 acres designated as the 'C' Vacancy is entirely embraced within the 'A' Vacancy but consists of an overlap of the 'A' and 'B' vacancies. (See Plat 1). The appellant also contends for an alternate 'A' Vacancy of 1855.3 acres which is included within the area designated as 'A' Vacancy.
The vacant land is claimed to exist between the boundaries of a series of grants which began at the confluence of the Guadalupe River and the San Antonio River (sometimes referred to in the old ancient documents as the 'Bexar River' or 'La Bahia River'), and extending northwesterly along the Guadalupe River and Coleto Creek about eighteen miles toward Goliad. It is extremely important at the outset to review historically the manner in which these grants of land originated and attempt to retrace the steps of the original surveyors and determine, if possible, the intent of the grantor. The rules for the construction of grants, is determined in this fashion. Once the intention of the grantor is definitely ascertained, all else must yield. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. State, 63 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1933, wr. ref.).
The basic documents concern primarily the old Mexican grants within the colony extended by the Commissioner Vidaurri. The contract provisions of this colony are so well known that they are a matter of judicial knowledge. Sayles Early Laws, Vol. 1, Art. 108; Harris v. O'Connor, 185 S.W.2d 993 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso 1944, w.o.m.); Hatch v. Dunn, 11 Tex. 708.
One hundred forty five years ago Priest Jose Antonio Valdez (formerly an Army Chaplain) applied for lands to be bounded by Geronimo Huizar, a proposed neighbor. On June 10, 1824 the Chief of the Provincial Deputation went on the ground accompanied by Huizar and the Priest and made a survey for the Priest. It began 200 pasos salamones (double steps) above Apache Crossing with course east to Mesquite de Ventura. The ancient recitation said:
'* * * It contained 10,667 varas, and all the land comprised from this measurement south to the junction of the said Guadalupe and Bexar Rivers amounts to a little more than four leagues, bounded on the North by vacant lands, the head-waters of Aguilar creek and another creek which is formed between the Prairie called Menchaca's Prairie and the said Mesquite de Ventura, a straight line 200 steps above Apache Crossing; on the east by the Lagoons which the Guadalupe forms; on the south by the junction of this River and the Bexar; and on the west by the said Bexar River to the said point of the Apaches, 200 steps above, as said; * * *'
On June 11, 1824, the Chief of the Provincial Deputation went on the land again accompanied by Huizar and the Priest and made a survey, this time for Huizar. Huizar's grant provided for a boundary 'on the south until reaching the Aguilar mott land surveyed for the Priest Don Jose Antonio Valdez.' This south boundary for Huizar was along the same line as the north boundary of the Priest Jose Antonio Valdez.
About ten years later, Commissioner Vidaurri started signing and issuing titles to the 18 grants out of which appellant claims his vacancy. The first one of these grants was titled to the Priest's son J. M. Valdes on October 8, 1834. His grant covered a little more than one league of land beginning at the mouth of the San Antonio River where it joins the Guadalupe. The description probably invades the Priest's land a little, but since it was his son and he had four leagues, it made little difference to him, apparently. This J. M. Valdes tract was located between the confluence of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers. The closing lines of this grant called for a north course of 5800 varas to be bounded on the west by the Priest. The next call was northeast 2780 varas to the Guadalupe River. This last direction call set the direction for each of the tier of grants, as each course thereafter was parallel to the northwest boundary of the J. M. Valdes Grant. The grant was for a league and one fourth and admonished the grantee with the recitation of 'practicing all acts of true possession'. Appellees contend that each and every one of the 18 grants are tied together by adjoinder calls and by the respective directions away from the Guadalupe River and the Coleto Creek as evidenced by the original adjudication of titles. If this is true, it is decisive of this lawsuit as it determines the intent of the parties to the colonization of these grants and leaves no vacant land in between. We agree.
This can be demonstrated in a number of ways by the undisputed evidence. The entire system of 18 tracts is likened in some respects to the ordinary everyday farm subdivision of 18 lots in one block all fronting on a river. There were basically few natural landmarks. The grants (lots) were described with a number or by the original settlers' name rather than by metes and bounds. The tracts of land followed a similar pattern to that of the porciones along the Rio Grande River which were likewise granted by the Mexican Government. They were designed to front on the river so as to give each owner some valuable water frontage. The frontage was narrow as compared to its length, as it extended back from the river. The early courses were not governed by the exactitudes of degrees and minutes but each course was dependent upon the other with parallel lines. Usually the first lateral line determined the course for all surveys in the system. This is the situation here. (See Plat 2).
This sketch drawn from the 1841 map (Plaintiff's exhibit 19). The frontage distances (on the west side of the grants) were taken in part from Plaintiff's exhibit 19 and are the same stated in the original grants. The numbering of the grants through Hidalgo #11th were taken from Plaintiff's exhibits 17 and 109 (also very early maps of the area). Numbers 12 through 18 are supplied for identification. Juan Rene and single son (Juan Rene) was one grant (15).
In an attempt to reconstruct the footsteps of the surveyors and to determine the intent of the original parties to the grants, one has but to follow the calls of each grant from the beginning to the end, to fully understand the purpose that Commissioner Vidaurri wished to be accomplished in the colonization of this land. Beginning with the J. M. Valdes (Tract No. 1), its northerly lined called for 2780 varas on a course northeastwardly terminating at the Guadalupe River and to be bounded on the north by vacant lands. The distance up the Guadalupe River from the confluence on the Valdez tract was never given. The Maria Josepha Traviesa (Tract No. 2) called for and adjoinder on the southeast by J. M. Valdes (the owner of Tract No. 1) and its called distance on this line to the river was exactly 2780 varas. This will bind the Traviesa to the Valdez. The northerly line of the Traviesa (Tract No. 2) had a called distance to the river of 8790 varas and was to be bounded on the north by lands of 'citizen_ _', the next grant in the series. It is apparent that the Traviesa Grant was not to be bounded by vacant lands but was to be bounded by some citizen colonist whose name was not remembered or unknown at the moment, or whose name was to be filled in the blank space at a later time. Looking back in the ancient documents we find that Traviesa application was September 20, 1834 and title was...
To continue reading
Request your trial