Schaeffer v. Berry

62 Tex. 705, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 314
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 28, 1884
DocketCase No. 1492
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 62 Tex. 705 (Schaeffer v. Berry) 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
Schaeffer v. Berry, 62 Tex. 705, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 314 (Tex. 1884).

Opinion

Street, Special Judge.

On April 24, 1876, H. W. Berry, as executor of the estate of H. L. Kinney, brought this suit against F. W. Schaeffer, John McClane, E. R. Oliver and Mifflin Kennedy in the statutory form of an action of trespass to try the title to certain lands occupied and claimed by the defendants and alleged to be within the grant of the state of Tamaulipas to Enrique Villareal, commonly known as theBincon del Oso, made November 16, [707]*7071831. Lucien Birdsey was afterwards admitted on his plea in intervention as co-plaintiff, and the suit was dismissed as to Kennedy.

By amended petition, November 18, 1879, plaintiff and interven or specially allege their title as assignees under the grantee and his heirs, and plead the statute of limitations of five years, and possession to the limits of the grant for twenty and for forty years.

The defendants pleaded title to particular parts of the tract sued for by the location of land certificates, surveys under them, and return of the field notes to the land office; they distinctly set out the field notes to the parts claimed and disclaim as to the residue; they also pleaded not guilty.

The boundaries of the grant known as the Bincon del Oso, as claimed by the plaintiff and intervenor, are thus set out in the original petition: Beginning at a point on the bank of the Nueces river about sixteen miles west of Corpus Ohristi, known as El Befugio, near the chimney of Charles Shaw, where the Barranca Blanco grazing tract approaches said river and where its northeast corner is established; thence south with the east line of said Barranca Blanco grazing tract of land to a pile of rocks in the prairie within about three miles of the Alamo Ban che, situated on the Aqua Dulce Creek; thence east to the Oso lagoon at a point where the lands of the Bincon de Corpus Ohristi approaches it; thence with the said Oso lagoon, including two islands near its mouth, to Corpus Ohristi Bay; thence with said Corpus Ohristi Bay, and Nueces Bay, and Nueces River, with the meanders of said lagoon, bays, and river, to the place of beginning; said tract of land is bounded on the west by the Barranca Blanco grazing tract of land, on the south by the Bincon de Corpus Ohristi grant and lagoon of the Oso, on the east by the Corpus Ohristi and Nueces Bays, and on the north by Nueces Bay and Nueces River.”

By amendment the point El Befugio is alleged to be situated about eighteen miles from Corpus Christi and at the point known as Paso de las Contrabondistas; the western line of the grant is alleged to be about twelve and a half miles in length, and is further described according to a sectionized division of these lands made by Kinney; and the southwestern boundary, as it is termed in the amendment, is also described according to the sectionized division by Kinney and as running due east until it meets the Oso, thence with the Oso to Kennedy’s fence, and otherwise as in the original petition.

The description of the land given in the grant is as follows: “ ten leagues of pasture lands for horses and for cattle in the place called the Bincon del Oso; ” also ten sitios embraced in angular bound[708]*708arles and demarkations which are shown on the annexed map;” also “ El Refugio and that of the prairie north to south for the west, that of the prairie and that of the Cayo west for the south side, that of the Cayo and the pass south to north for the east, and of the pass and of Refugio for the north side. It adjoins towards the, west with the pasture lands of the Barranca Blanco, towards the south with the Cayo of the Oso divisive from the lands of Corpus Christi, and for the other boundaries with the lagoon and the Nueces river.”

The note attached to the grant and certified by the surveyor, Antonio Canales, is as follows:

Note.— “ This piece of land, according to the map, is of irregular form, for the reason that it is bounded by the Laguna Madre and the Cayo del Oso on all sides except the west, but may be reduced to known figures according to the rules of geometry; for instance, the triangle O B G and the rectangle a. d. g. o. The area which both includes is two hundred and twenty-five million square varas, which united to the parts h. i. compose two hundred and fifty million square varas or ten sitios of pasture land for horses and cattle, which is the demarkation of the following boundaries: A, boundary of prairie; B, of Refugio divisive, equally of the Barranca Blanco; G, boundary of the pass of the Cayo del Oso; h, pasture of San Jose; i, pasture grounds of San Enrique; B G, Nueces river; n, Lagoon Oaidos; 1, another lagoon of salt water; M A, Cayo del Oso; this is divisive for the south side between this pasture piece and that of Corpus Christi. The line B G opposite the right angle O is four hundred and seventy-one cordeles and three varas, (the) square root of the sum of the square of the sides O B and B G, for the reason that the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the sides (containing the right angle).”

And the map also accompanying the grant is as follows:

[709]

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

Related

State of Texas v. Balli
190 S.W.2d 71 (Texas Supreme Court, 1944)
Harris v. O'Connor
185 S.W.2d 993 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1944)
McFaddin v. Hebert
100 S.W.2d 140 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Land v. Dunn
241 S.W. 580 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Jackson v. Graham
205 S.W. 755 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Dunn v. Land
193 S.W. 698 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Hermann v. Thomas
168 S.W. 1037 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Burke v. Braumiller
150 S.W. 206 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Riley v. Burroughs
59 N.W. 929 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Ratliff v. Burleson
25 S.W. 983 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1894)
Reast v. Donald
19 S.W. 795 (Texas Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Tex. 705, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaeffer-v-berry-tex-1884.