Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

431 S.W.2d 2

11 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 617

Coleman v. Forister

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1968

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1968-07-24

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A majority of the court approves the holding of the court of civil appeals that in view of surrounding circumstances, the following language, as a matter of law, gives the grantees an unrestricted right to use the full 160 by 420 foot lot in controversy for ingress and egress to Bee Creek: “ ‘This grant is specifically understood to cover only a one-foot strip of land bordering the water’s edge, together with the use of the land under the waters of Bee Creek that lies directly north of each space which may be used for the purpose of boat dockage. Each grantee in this deed is given the additional right of ingress and egress over the lands of grantor that lie between the property of Arlyn Smith and A. S, Hull, to the above described spaces and/or tracts. Each grantee is given the right to use the walk-way immediately south of the grants herein made for purposes of access to the various tracts, provided that no obstructions are placed upon said walk-way that would prevent the free use of such walk-way by any and all of the grantees herein mentioned.’ ” Coleman v. Forister, 431 S.W.2d 2, 3 (Tex.1968). [Emphasis in the original].”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Coleman v. Forister

Relies on Forister v. Coleman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1968-07-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2018

8 state decisions

30196819701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

¶2 Petitioners request that we note the rationale of our refusal of writ of error (n.r.e.) since the court of civil appeals had three alternative bases for its decision. 418 S.W.2d 550. A majority of the court approves the holding of the court of civil appeals that in view of surrounding circumstances, the following language, as a matter of law, gives the grantees an unrestricted right to use the full 160 by 420 foot lot in controversy for ingress and egress to Bee Creek:

“ ‘This grant is specifically understood to cover only a one-foot strip of land bordering the water’s edge, together with the use of the land under the waters of Bee Creek that lies directly north of each space which may be used for the purpose of boat dockage. Each grantee in this deed is given the additional right of ingress and egress over the lands of grantor that lie between the property of Arlyn Smith and A. S. Hull, to the above described spaces and/or tracts. Each grantee is given the right to use the walk-way immediately south of the grants herein made for purposes of access to the various tracts, provided that no obstructions are placed upon said walk-way that would prevent the free use of such walk-way by any and all of the grantees herein mentioned.’ ”

¶3 Therefore, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

/431/sw2d/2 · .json · Public domain