Garcia v. Garza , 161 S.W.2d 297 ( 1942 )

NORVELL, Justice.

This is an action of trespass to try title which involves a substantial- boundary question. Appellant, M. M. Garcia, sought a recovery of title -and possession of all of Surveys Nos. 566 ánd 918; the east 211 acres of Survey 565, and 44.9 acres out of Survey 884, all situated in Starr County, Texas. In addition to the statutory allegations, appellant also pleaded the five and ten year statutes of limitation, Articles 5509 and 5510, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.

The defenset of appellee, Domingo L. Garza, was in substance that the lands sued for were in fact within the boundaries of a senior survey owned by appellee, namely, Survey -No. 565.

Issues upon .the limitation feature of the case were submitted to the' j';ury and all answered favorable to appellee with the exception of the one relating to the five-year statute as applied to land.described as lying in Survey No. 918. Judgment was rendered in favor of appellant for these lands, and against appellant irisofar as the remaining tracts were concerned. Appellee does not attack that part of the judgment favorable to appellant.

We have examined appellant’s points wherein it is asserted that because of the improper exclusion of proffered evidence and an improper argument of counsel, this cause should be reversed and remanded generally, but are of the opinion that these points are not well taken. There is no error shown with reference to the trial of the limitation issues.

We are, however, of the opinion that this cause should be reversed and remanded in part as it appears that the trial court’s construction of the field notes of Survey No. 565 is affirmatively erroneous.

The patent (date:- 1881) field notes of Survey 565 are as follows :. .

“Beginning at a Post, the S. E. cor. of Sur. No. 164 by Scrip No. 6 Alexander Crain Harris and Brooks on the Bdy. Sur. Porción No. 86 formerly of the jurisdiction of Camargo.

“Thence with East Bdy. of sd. Sur. No. 164, N. 9½° E. 1928 vrs. to Post on South Westerly line of Sur. No. 20 by Scrip No. 13/35 H. C. Davis.- Thence with sd..line S. 31¾° E. at 644 vs. pass its S. cor. and 1594 vs. the S. cor. of Sur. No. 19 in the name of A. Moreno Assne. at 2829 vs. a square post the S. cor. of Sur. No. 3 Scrip No. 29/106 J. F. Degene'r. Thence N. 58)4° E. on Easterly bdyi said Sur. No. 3, 1090 to Post. Thence S 9½° W. 892 vs. to a Post on N. bdy. of Porcion No. 89 for S. E. cor. hereof. Thence No. 80¾° W. 100. vs. to the N. W. Cor. Por. No. 89. Thence S. 9½° W. 400 vs. to N. E. cor. Por. No. 88. Thence N. 80 ¾° W. 1300 vs. to its N. W. corner.' Thence N. 9¾° E. 100 vs. to N. E. cor. Por. No. 87. Thence N. 80¾° W. 1050 vs. Thence N. 9¼° E. 685 vs. to N. E. cor. Por. No. 86; Thence N. 80 ¾° W. 230 vs. to the Beginning.”

A plat shown with the recorded patent shows the supposed location of Survey No. 565 with reference to Porciones 86, 87, 88 (Spanish Jurisdiction of Camargo), and Surveys 164, 20, 19 and. 3. Part of this plat follows:

In 1920, R. S. Dod, a licensed land surveyor, located the North boundary line of Porciones 86, 87 and 88, as well as other porciones in the vicinity, at a distance considerably south of the, locations theretofore recognized,- thus creating or recognizing a vacancy between said porciones and the surveys to the north. We here set out part of a map prepared by J. H. May, a licensed surveyor, in 1935, and partially checked by him in 1937, which was introduced in evidence by appellee.

For the sake of clarity, we have omitted a blue line drawn upon the map by May during the trial, but have indicated the beginning point of said line by an “x”. .

There was some evidence indicating that prior to 1900, Porcion No. 86 was generally believed to extend North to the point marked “x” which indicates the supposed corner thereof. The blue line drawn upon the original exhibit by May represents a proposed construction of Survey 565, using the point designated by the “x” as the beginning point and running the lines of the survey by calls for course and distance.

The double broken line is shown in red upon the original and was made by May during the course of the trial. May’s sketch is apparently based upon Dod’s work in the vicinity, although he testified that he was attempting to follow the original surveyor insofar as the south line of 565 was concerned. It appears probable that various posts and stakes found by May had been placed there by Dod. The broken line represents the construction " of 565 as evidently adopted by the trial court.

This construction follows from starting at the Southeast corner of Survey No. 164 as located by May following Dod and running to a point in the boundary line of Survey 20, and then honoring calls for adjoinder over course and distance, in-eluding- adjomders to the porciones as located by Dod. By so doing, the acreage contained in Survey No. 565 is increased from the 621 ⅛ acres called for in the patent to 2500 to 3000 acres according to May.

On the other hand, if May’s location of the Southeast corner of Survey 164 be accepted and the calls of the patent reversed, the South boundary line of Survey No. . 565 is established in the proximate position shown by the unbroken lines of the map, providing calls for adjoinder to the porciones are disregarded. Such a construction is permissible, particularly when the lines of a survey may be more definitely and satisfactorily located by such method. 7 Tex.Jur. 148, § 25.

Appellee contends that “the rule is well settled in this State that in locating land lines, in cases of conflicting calls the order of dignity and control is: (1) calls for natural objects; (2) calls for artificial objects; and, (3) calls for course and distance; arid that calls for course and distance must, in case of conflict, yield to calls for natural or artificial objects.”

“The primary purpose in all cases of the kind [involving boundaries] is to locate the survey as it was intended to be located on the ground by the original surveyor.” Carter & Bro. v. Collins, Tex.Civ.App., 192 S.W. 316, 321, writ refused. The classification and grade of calls is a rule of evidenefe, and will not be arbitrarily applied in th^ construction of a survey to bring about a result obviously at variance with the intention of the original surveyor in locating the survey.

If Dod’s relocation of the north boundary line of the porciones be considered correct, and the evidence indicates that it is now* so accepted, it follows that the surveyor who prepared the field notes prior to 1881 for Survey 565 was mistaken as to the true location of the north boundary lines of the porciones, for the sketch accompanying the patent shows a common boundary line between Survey No. 565 and the porciones to the south. This is also apparent from the field notes of the Survey. The calls for adjoinder to the por-ciones should therefore be rejected under the rule stated in State v. Sullivan, 127 Tex. 525, 92 S.W.2d 228, 233, that “where the facts conclusively show that the surveyor through mistake or by - conjecture called for the adjoinder, the call for ad-joinder does not control over course and distance, even though the line or corner called for was marked. In such situation the call for adjoinder will be rejected, as inserted by mistake, and controlling effect given to course and distance from known and undisputed corners, when under the facts of the particular case such construction of the survey is ‘most consistent with the intention to be derived from the entire description.’ This method of construction by the rejection of a call for adjoinder inserted by mistake is most consistent with the true intention if its effect is to harmonize the other terms of the field notes and to disregard as few of the calls as possible.” See also Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. State, 129 Tex. 547, 101 S.W.2d 801.

The error in appellee’s theory of construction of Survey 565, which was apparently accepted by the trial court, is illustrated by the closing call of the patent field notes of the Survey, which is, “Thence (from N. E. Cor. Por. No. 86) N. 80¾° W. 230 vs to the beginning.” The distance call of 230 varas becomes approximately 2500 varas for closure, according to the scale of May’s map. The course call is changed from N. 80¾° W. 230 to one approaching due North. Certainly, it .is unreasonable to assume a course and distance mistake of this magnitude and the conclusion is inescapable that the original surveyor of No. 565 never went to the Northeast corner of Porcion No. 86, as that point was established by Dod. State v. Sullivan, supra.

' As the issue relating to the boundary questions involved are severable from those relating to claims under the real property statutes of limitations, that part of the judgment adverse to appellant will be reversed and a new trial. ordered with reference to the boundary issues only. Rule 434, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Scott v. Molter, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 603.

That part of the judgment of the trial court awarding to appellant title and possession of certain lands described as being located in Survey No. 9Í8 is affirmed. The remainder of said judgment is reversed'and the cause remanded for the purpose only of determining the boundary issues involved, with directions to the trial court to ascertain the true location of the boundaries -of the tracts of land involved in a manner not 'inconsistent with' this opinion, and enter judgment accordingly.

Affirmed in part,, and in part remanded with directions. 1 ■