Welder v. State
Decision Date | 30 May 1917 |
Docket Number | (No. 5677.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 196 S.W. 868 |
Parties | WELDER et al. v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Travis County; Chas. A. Wilcox, Judge.
Suit by the State against John J. Welder and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. On motion for rehearing. Motion overruled.
Batts & Brooks, of Austin, and Proctor, Vandenberge, Crain & Mitchell, of Victoria, for appellants. B. F. Looney, Atty. Gen., G. B. Smedley, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer Yates, of Edinburg, for appellee.
Findings of Fact.
The state of Texas sued the appellants in trespass to try title to recover 5,823 acres of land described by metes and bounds, and alleged to constitute the bed of Green Lake in Calhoun county, Tex. Two sets of field notes were introduced in evidence, one made in July, 1913, when the lake was dry, embracing 4,927 acres, in which the margin of the lake was run as called for in the field notes of the surrounding surveys; the other made by the same surveyor in November, 1913, when the lake was full, and which was run along the water's edge, and embraced 5,823 acres. The difference was occasioned by the erosion of the water on the northeast side of the lake.
The case was tried before the court without a jury, and the court gave judgment for the state upon the field notes of the survey made when the lake was dry. In other words, the state recovered all of the bed of the lake not included in the field notes of the surrounding surveys when run out according to their calls for course and distance. Green Lake is oval in form, and is about 3½ miles long by about 2 miles wide. It is entirely surrounded by patented surveys, as shown by the following sketch from the official map of Calhoun county: NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The court filed the following statement of facts:
And at the request of appellee the court made the following additional findings of fact:
The findings of fact are sustained by the evidence, and we adopt them as our own.
These surveys were originally owned by the parties to whom the certificates, by virtue of which said surveys were made, were issued or to their assignees, but at the time of the trial they were all owned by the appellants herein.
The issue in this case is not whether the state could grant title to land in the bed of a natural, permanent fresh water lake, but has it done so as to Green Lake? If so it is solely by reason of the fact that it has granted all of the land contiguous to and bordering upon said lake, and not by reason of any description in the grant which otherwise covers the bed of the lake. Neither is it a question of appurtenance, or riparian rights. If the appellants are the owners of the land covered by Green Lake, it is because such land has been granted to them, and not because it is appurtenant to land which they own. Land cannot be appurtenant to land. As to riparian rights, the judgment of the trial court expressly reserves such rights to appellants. The appellants plant them selves upon the doctrine of the common law —that a conveyance of land on a nonnavigable stream conveys title to the center of such stream, their contention being that the common law in this regard is modified by statute in this state only to the extent of declaring streams 30 feet wide or over to be navigable.
It is true that the common law as modified by our local conditions is in force in Texas. But the common law, as has been aptly said, is a system of principles, and not a collection of arbitrary rules. The common law claims to be the perfection of reason, and it is one of its maxims that where the reason ceases the law ceases; or, as applied to this country, it may be said that where the reason never existed the law never existed. The reason why no streams were classed as navigable in England, except those in which the tide ebbed and flowed, was that no others in that country were navigable in fact. But it is absurd to apply this test to such rivers as the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio.
Mr. Justice Brown, in Grigsby v. Reib, 105 Tex. 597, 153 S. W. 1124, L. R. A. 1915E, 1, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1011, said:
"The effect of the act of 1840 was not to * * * put into effect the body of the common law, but to make effective the provisions of the common law so far as they are not inconsistent with the conditions * * * of our people."
Mr. Chief Justice Gaines, in Land Co. v. McClelland, 86 Tex. 185, 23 S. W. 576, 1100, 22 L. R. A. 105, declared that the common law as to inclosing lands was not applicable to conditions in this state. In Swayne v. Oil Co., 98 Tex. 605, 86 S. W. 742, 69 L. R. A. 986, 8 Ann. Cas. 1117, the same learned Judge, speaking for the court, said:
"So in other instances rules established in England were not regarded as of controlling authority in this state, for the reason that it was thought that the conditions here were so different from those existing in England that if the conditions in that country had been the same as in this, the ruling there would have been different."
In Railway Co. v. Smith, 72 Miss. 683, 17 South. 80, 27 L. R. A. 764, 48 Am. St. Rep. 579, the Supreme Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Balli
...That survey called for a definite amount of land, and the presumption is that the government did not intend to grant more. Welder v. State, Tex.Civ. App., 196 S.W. 868, writ refused; 7 Tex. Jur., p. 123, § 5. And if the boundary lines of such survey made by de la Fuente can be located and f......
-
Manry v. Robison
...navigation above tidewater was dependent on grant or custom, and have applied the civil-law rule of navigability in fact. Welder v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 196 S. W. 868; Orange Lumber Co. v. Thompson, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 562, 126 S. W. 604; Jones v. Johnson, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 262, 25 S. W. 650......
-
McAdam v. Smith
...Inc., 1916, 2 N.Y.2d 330, 160 N.Y.S.2d 859, 141 N.E.2d 429; Trowbridge v. Ehrich, 1908, 191 N.Y. 361, 84 N.E. 297; Welder v. State, Tex.Civ.App.1917, 196 S.W. 868; Whittier v. Montpelier Ice Co., 1916, 90 Vt. 16, 96 A. 378; Commissioners, etc., King County v. Seattle Factory Sites Co., 1913......
-
Cummins v. Travis County Water Dist. No. 17, 03-04-00049-CV.
...Mfg., 107 Tex. 58, 174 S.W. 284, 286 (1915) (discussing riparian rights in terms of lakefront property); Welder v. State, 196 S.W. 868, 870 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1917, writ ref'd) (same); Gibson v. Carroll, 180 S.W. 630, 632 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1915, no writ) (land bordering Corpus Chr......