Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Wood v. Stone

Wood v. Stone

359 S.W.2d 68, 1962 Tex. App. LEXIS 2595
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 24, 1962
Docket13910
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 359 S.W.2d 68 (Wood v. Stone) 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
Wood v. Stone, 359 S.W.2d 68, 1962 Tex. App. LEXIS 2595 (Tex. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinions

COLEMAN, Justice.

This is a suit in trespass to try title. The question to be determined is whether or not the W. S. Hunt Survey in Harris County is public school land occupying a vacancy between the Engelbert Ruhl and the Joseph Dunman Surveys. The land involved is a tract 77 by 630 varas containing 8½ acres. The jury found the west line of the E. Ruhl Survey to be the same as the east line of the Joseph Dun-man Survey. The court rendered judgment that the State of Texas and their mineral lessees Owen B. Wood and John P. Klep, d/b/a Wood, Klep and Company, take nothing; that the title claimed by them be vested in appellees; and that the cross-action of certain appellees be dismissed.

Appellants contend that as a matter of law they are entitled to judgment for title to the land in controversy. The E. Ruhl Survey was surveyed in 1860 and patented in 1862. It adjoined no survey to the west [70]*70The Joseph Dunman was surveyed in 1871. Originally this suit was brought by: Mrs. Ollie Stone, a widow; Mrs. Iva A. Daniel, a widow; Mrs. Avy Lee McGarr, joined pro forma by her husband, J. Paul McGarr; Mrs. Letitia Lee Shaver, a widow; Mrs. Leander Walker, a widow; W. O. Davis, a widower and sole heir of Ima N. Lee Davis; Ura Lee Clarke, a widow, Elma Eissler, a feme sole; and Jean Bruening, joined pro forma by her husband, Dr. Paul H. Bruen-ing; and Mrs. Mae Ussery, a widow, being children of Susan Lee Fields, deceased; Ida Lee Fields, joined pro forma by her husband, C. R. L. Fields; J. B. Lee, and Mrs. Ada Louise Lee Meyer, joined pro forma by her husband, C. F. Meyer, only surviving children of J. B. Lee, deceased; and Traders Oil Company, of Houston, a Delaware corporation, with a permit to do business in Texas; and McAlester Fuel Company, a Delaware corporation, with a permit to transact business in Texas. After Wood and Klep answered and filed their cross-action, the original plaintiffs dismissed their petition and filed an answer and cross-action. The State of Texas filed a plea in intervention. Additional parties were impleaded by the State of Texas and Wood, Klep and Company.

The jury in answer to Special Issue No. 1 found that the most westerly west line of the E. Ruhl for its length of 630 varas and the east line of the Joseph Dunman for this distance is a common line.

The State of Texas, and its mineral lessees, appellants, were plaintiffs in the trial court. The burden of proof on the whole case rested on them. A prima facie case was established when the State introduced its pleadings. The burden then rested on appellees to show that the specific land involved in this suit has been segregated from the public domain by grant or purchase, that is, a grant from the State, and that the land in question lies within the boundaries defined in such grant. Producer’s Oil Co. v. State, 213 S.W. 349, Tex.Civ.App.

Copies of the original field notes of the J. Dunman, the E. Ruhl, and the W. S. Flunt Surveys were introduced into evidence. The E. Ruhl is the senior survey. The J. Dunman does not call for an ad-joinder with the E. Ruhl, nor does it call for any natural or artificial object referred to in the field notes of the E. Ruhl. The W. S. Hunt Survey, the validity of which is the question to be determined by this suit, calls for adjoinder with both the E. Ruhl and the J. Dunman. Since we cannot determine from a study of the field notes that the land in dispute is included in either the E. Ruhl or the J. Dunman, the burden remained on appellees to show that one or the other of the grants as marked on the land by the original surveyor included the land in question. Producer’s Oil Co. v. State, supra. The land in question adjoins, but is not included within, the bounds of the J. Dunman Survey as it is presently marked on the ground and occupied.

The field notes of the E. Ruhl Survey begin at its northeast corner in the south line of the Robert Dunman Survey. Its lines run west with the Dunman south line to the east line of the James Strange Survey and then south to the Strange southeast corner. There is no substantial controversy about the ground location of these three corners. From the Strange southeast corner the line runs west with the south line of the Strange 400 varas to corner in prairie, “from which a pine 18 ins. diam. mkd. R brs. N. 42° E 90 vs. dist.” The line then goes South 630 varas to corner in the prairie, thence East 844 varas to corner on the East boundary line of A. May’s Labor, and then North 855 varas along the May’s line to the place of beginning. The witness tree at the Strange southeast corner cannot be located. No object is called for at the southwest corner of the Ruhl.

A copy of a map which appellants have attached to their brief to illustrate their contentions is inserted in order that the opinion may be more easily followed.

[71]*71 yYjlIt2Z2IotV

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

Related

TH Investments Inc v. Kirby Inland Marine L.P. and Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007
TH Investments, Inc. v. Kirby Inland Marine, L.P.
218 S.W.3d 173 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
McHard v. State
509 S.W.2d 413 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
General Motors Corporation v. Barbara June Muncy and Charles Muncy
367 F.2d 493 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)
Rodriguez v. Flores
403 S.W.2d 172 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Gilson v. Universal Realty Co.
378 S.W.2d 115 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1964)
Wood v. Stone
359 S.W.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
359 S.W.2d 68, 1962 Tex. App. LEXIS 2595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-stone-texapp-1962.