strip of land owned by Wm. A. Smith, purchased by him from Jackson H. Griffin." There is only one subdivision in the Minchey league north of the Webb tract, or the tract of land described in the trustees' deed. It contains approximately 255 acres of land. Wm. A. Smith rendered for taxes 255 acres of land in the David Minchey league for the years 1852 and 1853. The Wm. A. Smith tract was later known as the Dan Clayton tract of land. The title to this tract of land later passed into O. A. Schade in November, 1897. It is at least more reasonable to presume than not that the Schade tract of land in the Minchey league was formerly the Wm. A. Smith tract. Herndon v. Burnett, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 25, 50 S. W. 581; Bounds v. Little, 75 Tex. 316, 12 S. W. 1109; Strother v. Hamilton (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S. W. 529. Appellant insists that all parties must of land was "bounded on the north by a claim under the deed from B. W. Hardin, sheriff, to John W. Clayton, which will be referred to hereinafter as the "sheriff deed," and would fix the north boundary line of the land conveyed thereby as being the line A-D, as shown on the plat. Appellees would fix the north boundary line of the Wilson WebbJohn W. Clayton tract with reference to the calis in the deed to John W. Clayton as trustee, hereinafter referred to as "trustee deed," as being the line A-E. Under appellant's contention, its east boundary line would be the line O-N, as shown on the plat, for, under its contention, its east boundary line would have to be the line O-N to have its 80 acres to which it is admittedly entitled. Under appellees' contention, its east boundary line would be P-Q, for, placing the north boundary line of the Wilson Webb-John W. Clayton tract at the line A-E, appellant would be getting its 80 acres by making the line P-Q its east boundary line. The small strip in controversy now has on it several producing oil wells. Hence this lawsuit. On a trial to the court without a jury, and without conclusions of law and fact, which were not requested, the trial court fixed the lines in controversy as contended for by appellees. It thus appears that this suit involves only the issue of boundary. Opinion. [1] The following conclusions support the trial court's judgment: Second. The south boundary line of the Smith-Schade tract is the line A-E as shown on the above plat. The following facts support this conclusion: There is only one line leading west from the southeast corner of the O. A. Schade tract identified by the two sweet gum trees, and designated by the letter A on the above plat. This line is 74 or 75 years old, and its course from that point is north 86 degrees, 39 minutes west. All of the existing deeds to what is designated as the Schade tract call for its south boundary line from its a course north southeast corner to be on 86 degrees 45 minutes west, and all the surFirst. The "strip of land owned by Wil- veyors testified that the difference of 6 minliam A. Smith, purchased by him from Jack-utes in a line is wholly immaterial. The unson H. Griffin," referred to in the trustee disputed evidence shows that the marked deed, is the same as the O. A. Schade tract line has always been recognized as the dishown on the plat, supra, and referred to inviding line between the Schade and Wilson the deed from the Van Deventers to the T. A. R. Oil Company, under which appellant holds. No chain of title was introduced in evidence from Jackson Griffin through William A. Smith to O. A. Schade, but the fact that the records were burned is a circumstance to be considered in connection with that issue. The following additional circumstances sup port this conclusion: Webb or Martha Van Deventer tract. D. B. Tevis testified that he had known these two tracts of land for the last 60 years, and that 25 or 30 years ago he saw the old marked line dividing the Schade and Van Deventer tracts, and that recently he helped Compton run the line; that Quitman Van Deventer himself showed the witness that line in 1893. "There is a line runs through there they call This record shows that the O. A. Schade and recognize as the dividing line between tract was formerly the Wm. A. Smith tract the Dan Clayton and John Clayton tracts. It of land. The Griffins first conveyed a tract runs through that field. I was told that by of land in the southwest corner of the north Mr. Van Deventer, Mr. Steusoff, and several one-third to Wilson Webb. They next con- others, and by the negroes that farmed that." veyed a 150-acre tract immediately east of The Van Deventers always claimed the south the Webb tract to A. B. Jones, now known as boundary line of the Schade as their north the Meadow or Tevis tract. The Griffins next boundary. L. Q. Van Deventer testified that conveyed a 100-acre tract immediately north he knew the location of the south boundary of the Tevis tract to Jerome De Blanc. This line of the Schade tract and the north line left a tract of land in the northwest corner of the Van Deventer tract, and that "our of the one-third north of the Webb tract and north line upon the ground with reference east of the De Blanc tract. The Griffins con- to the south line of the Schade tract is the veyed the tract in the northwest corner of same line." "I know there was old landthe north one-third to Wm. A. Smith, because marks on trees along the line which I say is it is recited in the deed from H. R. Clayton the south line of the Schade and the north to John W. Clayton et al. that the Webb tract line of my mother, my sister, and my tract. (290 S. W.) That is the line we have been claiming to as the common line; that is, that is the line we run our fence to." Mrs. Martha Van Deventer testified: "I know whose tract of land was to the north and adjoining me on the north. It was the Schade tract. As I said, I claimed up to the Schade line on the north. Before the tract on the north was known as the Schade tract it was known as the Dan Clayton tract. I must be crazy if I don't know that. Dan Clayton did live on his tract of land." O. A. Schade testified that there was a common dividing line between his tract on the north and the Van Deventer or Clayton tract on the south; that he and Van Deventer had a discussion about that line. "As I stated, Van Deventer was claiming the land immediately on the south of me, south of my south line, it being the tract adjoining me on the south, and he was claiming that before I bought and at the time I bought." If the old marked line north 86 degrees 39 minutes west from the sweet gum corner is the south boundary line of the Schade Clayton by B. W. Hardin, sheriff, on June 3, 1845." We concede this proposition, but in so doing further find that the John W. Clayton tract, as reconveyed to him as trustee, was bounded on the north by the line A-E, and was identical in its boundaries with the Wilson Webb tract. By this conclusion, we fix the line A-E as the north boundary line of the land conveyed under the sheriff deed as against appellant's construction placing it at the line A-D, as shown on the above plat. [3] In construing the field notes in the sheriff deed, appellant invokes the following proposition, which is unquestionably sound: "It is a familiar rule that a survey of land must be located by the calls on its own field light of all the existing and attending circumnotes. If when applied to the ground, in the stances, the field notes are certain and unambiguous, then the calls speak for themselves. To permit the introduction of evidence to vary any of the calls would be to violate the universal rule that extraneous evidence is not admissible to vary a written instrument." tract, then the Schade tract has it approxi-iff deed, appellant says: [4] Applying that proposition to the sher mate acreage, the Webb 300-acre tract has 276.7 acres; but if the line is located as claimed by the appellant, then the Schade 255-acre tract contains 271 acres, and the Wilson Webb 300-acre tract contains only 262.6 acres. Third. The south boundary line of the Smith-Schade tract was the north boundary "We think there can be no doubt that the deJohn W. Clayton, in the light of the knowledge scription in the deed by Hardin, sheriff, to of the parties and the facts as they existed at the time, was definite and unambiguous, and there was no uncertainty about the particular tract of land intended to be conveyed." almost all the rules of construction evolved by the courts to save ambiguous deeds from being void. This is apparent from the most casual inspection of the field notes given in the sheriff deed. It says: "Beginning at the lower line of the third of a league of David Minchey headright sold to James Martin deed, on the river, thence up the river with its meanders four hundred and sixteen 6/10 varas." line of the Wilson Webb-John W. Clayton In this proposition appellant is in error. tract. This was shown by recitations in The field notes to the sheriff deed are so amdeeds, by common repute in the neighbor-biguous that an application on the ground hood, and by the testimony of owners of both can be given to them only by resorting to the Schade and the Webb tract. In support of this conclusion we refer to the facts given under the first and second conclusions, supra. Fourth. Wilson Webb died holding the title to his 300 acres. Through his daughter, Martha Clayton, this title was vested in the Van Deventers, who therefore, at the time they executed the conveyance to the T. A. R. Oil Company, owned under Martha Van De venter to the line A-E, even if it be conceded that both the sheriff deed and the trustee As read, it would seem that this call would deed conveyed only to the line A-D, as claim- force appellant to meander the river 416% ed by appellant. Owning to the line A-E, varas for the northwest corner. But all parand conveying to that line in their T. A. R. ties agree that that is not the proper. conOil Company deed, appellant, who holds un-struction, for when applied to the claims of der that deed, must go to the line A-E in the parties it would convey only a small part fixing the north boundary line of its 80 acres. of the Wilson Webb-John W. Clayton tract, The case might well rest on the foregoing and would not extend as far north even as conclusions, but since appellant has rested the north boundary line of the Antoine tract. its appeal upon the proper construction of Appellant construes this language as requirthe sheriff deed, we will expressly dispose of ing a line to run north at right angles with its contentions. the south boundary line; but clearly such a [2] Fifth. Appellant advances the proposi- construction is not the line of the deed. tion that: "The John W. Clayton 300-acre tract, of which the Van Deventer 225-acre tract is a part, is the same land conveyed to John W. Again, the description continues: "Being one-half the square of this survey." This language has no meaning, and, as we understand the testimony, was given no meaning when applied to the facts of this case. Ap-, one degree being parallel lines. In view of the pellant seeks by an extended analysis to read into this description the statutory law as it existed at that time, but we are unable to follow it as applied to the facts of this case. It is our conclusion that the language just quoted affords no help to the court in construing the field notes in this deed. Continuing: "Thence from the river parallel with the line of said third a sufficient distance so that a line running to intersect the lower line and thence to the beginning corner, will embrace three hundred acres of land." Even if appellant's construction of the first call is adopted and the northwest corner fixed as claimed by it, the survey will not contain 300 acres. At no point can a northwest corner be fixed for the sheriff deed whereby it can be made to convey 300 acres of land, for the simple reason that in extending east the surveyor seeking to apply this call to the facts as they exist on the ground would run into the land of other parties before his complement of acres could be obtained. It would appear from an examination of the record that the witnesses in this case placed four different constructions upon the sheriff deed, illustrating its ambiguity, as follows: "(1) That it means to meander the river 416.6 varas, then draw a line parallel with its south boundary far enough to include 300 acres. This is rejected by all parties, because 300 acres of land in that shape would conflict with all of the surveys on the east, and the Texas Company 80 acres either would not be included, or, if so, it would conflict with the Antoine tract. The north boundary line of the tract so located would be south of the present location of the Texas Company 80-acre tract under any theory. "(2) That the first part of the first call taken in connection with the second half 'being onehalf the square of this survey,' means a 300acre survey 416 varas wide. 416 varas is onehalf of the square of a 110-acre tract. It is not one-half the square of a 300-acre tract. Such construction would cause the second part of the first call to conflict with the first part of the same call as well as the call for quantity, and the 300-acre tract so located would conflict with the surveys on the east. This is the most ambiguous construction of all. "(3) That the words, 'being one-half the square of this survey,' mean one-half the square of a 300-acre tract, which would give it a width of 650 varas on the river. This construction would give the tract of land described in the sheriff's deed its acreage, but it would conflict with the Schade tract on the north, and the east boundary line of the Texas Company 80 acres would be located farther west than appellees contend. Under such a theory the sheriff's deed would describe more land than was described in the deed to Wilson Webb. action of John W. Clayton and wife, Martha J. Clayton, née Webb, and those holding under them for the last 80 years or more, and the inactivity of the other Webb heirs, if any, and the fact that such survey would not conflict with any of the other surveys and would more nearly have its stated acreage than the locations claimed by the appellant, this is the most reasonable construction of all." [5] Construing the sheriff deed in the light of all attending circumstances, it seems to us that the intent on the part of the sheriff to convey all of the Wilson Webb tract clearly appears. The Wilson Webb tract was reputed to contain 300 acres. The sheriff purports to sell 300 acres. Had he intended to sell less than the 300 acres, it would have been his duty to say so. Agreeing with all parties that the call for the meanders of the river 4160 varas is ambiguous, to carry the sheriff deed to the Smith-Schade line does violence to only one call in the deed, that for the north boundary line to be parallel with the south boundary line, while to give effect to that call does violence to almost every other call in the deed. If the proper construction of this deed, as a matter of law, does not carry it to the Smith-Schade line, then clearly it was an issue of fact, which the court resolved against appellant, and by which it is bound. [6] Sixth. It also follows that though appellant be correct in fixing the north boundary line of the sheriff deed at the line A-D, the trial court's judgment must be affirmed. It seems to us that appellant cannot escape the proposition that the proper location of the north boundary line of the sheriff tract was ambiguous. With this deed before him, Henry B. Clayton, in conveying the land back to his brother, John W., and to George Preacher, as trustees, resolved the ambiguity against appellant by the call for the William A. Smith tract. As John W. Clayton was a party to that deed, he was estopped by this call to deny that the north boundary line extended to the Smith south boundary line. Also, as the beneficiaries under the trustee deed have appropriated the trust they are estopped to deny that it extended to the Smith south boundary line. As appellant holds under the trustee deed, it is also estopped, as are all the other parties to this litigation holding under this chain of title, to deny the effect of this call. In Parker v. Campbell, 21 Tex. 763, it was said: "There is no better settled doctrine than that, where a party has solemnly admitted a fact by deed and under his hand and seal, he is estopped, not only from denying the deed itself, but every fact which it recites." "(4) That B. W. Hardin attempted to convey all of the Wilson Webb tract whose north and south boundary lines probably appeared See, also, Wallace v. Pruitt, 1 Tex. Civ. parallel to the sheriff, because they lacked only | App. 231, 20 S. W. 728; Corzine v. Williams, |