McCown v. Hill

26 Tex. 359
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 26 Tex. 359 (McCown v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McCown v. Hill, 26 Tex. 359 (Tex. 1862).

Opinion

Bell, J.

The grant to Daniel Monroe was made on the 20th day of March, A. D. 1835. The grant to Sterling Robertson was made on the 1st day of April, A. D. 1835. The grant to Robertson calls for Daniel Monroe’s north-west corner at a distance of 860 varas from the north-east corner of Lewis’ survey. The deed from Robertson to Johnson also calls for Monroe’s north-west corner. The testimony of Erath shows very clearly that Monroe’s north-west corner had not been established at the date of the grant to Robertson, and at the date of Robertson’s deed to Johnson, but" was subsequently established by himself In view of these facts, the court properly instructed the jury, that if they believed from the evidence that Monroe’s north line was not run, and his northwest corner not marked and established on the ground, then Robertson’s grant would stop at 860 varas from the north-east corner of Lewis’ survey; and that the plaintiffs could not recover any land lying south of a line running from that point to the river, according to the course called for in Robertson’s grant. If Monroe’s north-west corner had been marked and "established on the ground, then it cannot be doubted, independent of any agreement upon a dividing line by the parties in interest, that the line of Robertson’s grant would have to be extended to Monroe’s corner, and Monroe’s grant would have to be confined to its marked corners and boundaries. These rules of law were all distinctly stated to the jury in tho charge given them by the court. We can see no. error in the judgment, and it is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Strong v. Sunray DX Oil Company
448 S.W.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Carter v. Texas Co.
87 S.W.2d 1079 (Texas Supreme Court, 1935)
Pandem Oil Corp. v. Goodrich
29 S.W.2d 877 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Ratliff v. Burleson
25 S.W. 983 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1894)
Ware v. McQuinn
26 S.W. 126 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1894)
McAninch v. Freeman
4 S.W. 369 (Texas Supreme Court, 1887)
Woods v. Robinson
58 Tex. 655 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
Browning's Administratrix v. Atkinson
37 Tex. 633 (Texas Supreme Court, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Tex. 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccown-v-hill-tex-1862.