Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Ealand-Wood Lumber Co. v. Bronson-Morgan

Ealand-Wood Lumber Co. v. Bronson-Morgan

246 S.W.2d 493, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 1592
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 19, 1951
DocketNo. 9994
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 246 S.W.2d 493 (Ealand-Wood Lumber Co. v. Bronson-Morgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ealand-Wood Lumber Co. v. Bronson-Morgan, 246 S.W.2d 493, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 1592 (Tex. Ct. App. 1951).

Opinions

ARCHER, Chief Justice.

Bronson-Morgan, et al., doing business as the Jasper County Lumber Company, Ltd., and Kurth Lumber Company, as plaintiffs, brought this suit against Ealand-Wood Lumber Company, M. T. Walters and various other defendants in trespass [494]*494to try title to certain lands on the Angelina River in Jasper County.

The defendants filed cross-action and disclaimed any land north of a line hereinafter referred to for convenience as “The Hickory Tree Line.” The plaintiffs disclaimed as to any land south of a line hereinafter referred to as the “Indian Creek Line.”

By agreement, the cause of action against Ealand-Wood Lumber Company was severed from the main suit.

The cause was submitted to the jury on three special issues, two of which requested answers concerning the location of plaintiffs’ south boundary line and the other requested an answer to the plaintiffs’ claim of ten year statute of limitation, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 5510. The jury found all three issues against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants. On motion made by the plaintiffs the court granted judgment non obstante veredicto, and this appeal is from that judgment.

The appeal is before this court on two assignments of error: the first is that the court erred in rendering judgment non obstante veredicto, and the second is that the court erred in refusing to enter judgment on the verdict, and since both points are related they were argued under one statement by the appellants. The appel-lees assigned four counterpoints:

“Counterpoint One. The original calls in the M. B. Lewis Survey for the unique meanders of the Angelina River and two crossings of Indian Creek were identified on the ground by the judicial admissions of defendants and by the undisputed testimony of both surveyors: and as natural monuments must control the boundary location as a matter of law.
“Counterpoint Two. The southeast corner of the M. B. Lewis Survey was established as a matter of law and must define the south line according to the patent.
“Counterpoint Three. The M. B. Lewis south line, being a common line (for a portion of its distance) with the William Jordan north line, must be located where the Jordan north line is fixed as a matter of law.
“Counterpoint Four. Therp was no evidence sufficient to raise a jury issue controverting the established south line of the M. B. Lewis Survey.”

One cross-assignment of error: That the trial court erred in excluding from evidence the recorded field notes of McDonald, a County Surveyor.

This suit, while brought as a trespass to try title, is a boundary line dispute and -involves the location of the north line of the Wm. Jordan one-half league and the south line of the Martin B. Lewis' one-half league.

The question for our decision is whether the evidence, which we will summarize later in this opinion, raised a genuine fact issue as to the location of the south line of the M. B. Lewis survey, or on the other hand, does the original field notes and patent fix and demand as a matter of law that the Lewis south line be left where it was placed by McFarland in his survey of 1835, as contended for by plaintiffs.

We recognize that in cases of this character all reasonable intendments from the testimony must be resolved in favor of the jury’s finding if reasonably supported by the evidence, and we indulge these intend-ments in this case.

The trial court, after hearing the evidence, seeing the maps and plats, and after the- case had been fully developed, submitted to the jury on the issues, the jury’s verdict received, concluded that there was no fact issue, but that the south line of the Lewis survey was located according to-the field notes in the patent as a matter of law, and rendered judgment fpr appellee.

For convenience in getting a clearer understanding of the field note calls in the several surveys in the area about which-testimony was had, we insert herein Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1, a portion of the official current map of the General Land Office.

[495]*495 7i

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McCormick v. Rugeley
253 S.W.2d 57 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 S.W.2d 493, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 1592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ealand-wood-lumber-co-v-bronson-morgan-texapp-1951.