Volume 112 — Texas Reports

The City of Austin sued the Great Southern Life Ins. Co., to recover certain taxes. Judgment was for defendant and plaintiff appealed. The judgment being reversed and rendered in favor of appellant plaintiff, (211 S. W., 482), the insurance company obtained writ of error.

Question certified from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third District, in appeal from the County Court of Travis County. Yon Koenneritz appealed from a judgment of the County Court allowing Ziller the commissions here involved.

<p>Question certified from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eighth District, in an appeal from El Paso County.</p> <p>The questions certified having been referred by the Supreme Court to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, for its opinion and same having been approved and adopted as its own, the answers are here certified to the Court of Civil Appeals.</p>

<p>Questions certified from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth District, in an appeal from Dallas County.</p> <p>The questions involved being by the Supreme Court referred to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, for their opinion, and same adopted by the Supreme Court, it is accordingly certified to the Court of Civil Appeals as the answer to such questions.</p>

Question certified from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth District, in an appeal from the County Court of Dallas County. The' Supreme Court referred the question submitted to the Commission of Appeals, Section B. The opinion of that body, being adopted by the Shpreme Court, is certified to the Court of Civil Appeals as its answer.

Original application to the Supreme Court by an insurance company and its agents for writ of mandamus requiring Hall, the Commissioner of Insurance and Banking, to issue to such agents a certificate of their right to do business as such.

<p>Boundaries — Calls—Course and Distance — Line of Older Survey. 1</p> <p>In a boundary suit plaintiff’s rights were dependant on true location of the western line of section 3, an older survey called for as the eastern boundary of plaintiff’s land. Its location could not be fixed by the calls of such older survey other than those for course and distance West from the state line; but there was evidence of the existence of an old marked line a little further West than the point reached by course and distance, and of long claim by the owners of section 3 of this marked line as their West boundary. Held'.</p> <p>(1) Under the state of the evidence here considered the question of the true location of this boundary line was one of fact which should have been left to the jury, and not determined by the court as one dependent entirely on course and distance, (p. 390).</p> <p>(2) Plaintiff’s case depending on his establishing the line in question so as to include within his patent the disputed territory, he had the burden of proving that it was so located, (p. 391.)</p> <p>(3) That a call for an unmarked line of an adjacent survey is superior to one for course and distance is not a rule of absolute application unless such line can be located with reasonable accuracy .and certainty, (p. 391).</p> <p>(4) Location of a line by calls for course and distance requires certainty in the location of the starting point from which they are to be measured (here the State line) and attention is called to the fact that this location is left uncertain by the evidence, (pp. 391, 392).</p>

Question certified from the Court of Civil Appeals for the First District, in an appeal from Harris County. The question was referred to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, for their opinion thereon, and same, being approved, is here certified to the Court of Civil Appeals as the answer of the Supreme Court.

Questions certified from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District in an appeal from Wichita County. The questions were referred by the Supreme Court to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, and its opinion thereon, being adopted by the Supreme Court, is certified to the Court of Civil Appeals as its answer.