Cox V. Campbell
I beleive this is the case you are referring to. I was given this summary a while back.
COX VERSUS CAMPBELL
In Cox v. Campbell, 135 Tex. 428, 143 S.W.2d 361 (1940), Campbell owned 186 acres that had a 200 foot railroad right-of-way running across it. Campbell conveyed 108 acres north of the railroad to Castleberry. The southern boundary line of the 108 acres was described as the northern boundary line of the railroad right of way. Later, Campbell conveyed 68 acres south of the railroad to Turner using the railroad as the northern boundary of the tract. Campbell’s heirs claimed title to the right of way dividing Castleberry’s tract and Turner’s tract. The Texas Supreme Court held that the deeds from Campbell conveyed to the center of the railroad right-of-way despite the metes and bounds descriptions provided in the deeds.
Under Texas law, when a deed conveys land abutting a right-of-way, title to the center of the right-of-way also passes by the deed. State v. Fuller, 407 S.W.2d 215 (Tex. 1966); Cox v. Campbell, 135 Tex. 428, 143 S.W.2d 361 (1940); Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed, 121 Tex. 427, 50 S.W.2d 1080 (1932); Reagan v. Marathon Oil Company, 50 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.). This general rule applies even if the description of the land terminates at the right-of-way, unless a contrary intention is expressed in plain and unequivocal terms. Under the strips-and-gores doctrine, it is presumed that a grantor has no intention of reserving a fee interest in a narrow, adjoining strip of land when such land ceases to be useful to the grantor after the conveyance. To overcome this presumption, the grantor must explicitly reserve in the deed with plain and specific language an interest in a narrow strip of land adjoining the conveyed land. Cantley v. Gulf Production Co., 135 Tex. 339, 143 S.W.2d 912 (1940); Cox v. Campbell, 135 Tex. 428, 143 S.W.2d 361 (1940). This rule applies to city lots for they are adjoining streets and easements that were acquired by public dedication, easement or eminent domain. If the right-of-way is acquired by deed, this doctrine may not apply and the mineral interest underlying the interest may belong to the grantee.
Cox V. Campbell
thanks for the info. i've been chasing my tail for a couple of days and haven't had a chance to look it up.
