The fact that the iron stake placed at such corner has disappeared is unimportant for its location can be definitely fixed by the distance calls. Thatcher v. Matthews, supra; Houston Oil Co. v. Choate (Tex.Civ.App.) 215 S.W. 118; Wm. M. Rice, etc., v. Gieseke (Tex.Civ.App.) 154 S.W. 612; Temple Lumber Co. v. Felts (Tex.Civ.App.) 260 S.W. 228; Stark v. Stout (Tex.Civ.App.) 174 S.W. 1014; Plowman v. Miller (Tex.Civ.App.) 27 S.W.2d 612. In this connection we quote from Thatcher v. Matthews, supra, by Chief Justice Gaines:
The fact that those bearing trees have disappeared does not alter the controlling effect of the actual location of the northwest corner of the Lambeth, if such location can be shown by competent evidence. Thatcher v. Matthews, 101 Tex. 122, 105 S.W. 317; Houston Oil Co. v. Choate (Tex.Civ.App.) 215 S.W. 118, 122; Wm. M. Rice, etc., v. Gieseke (Tex.Civ.App.) 154 S.W. 612; Temple Lbr. Co. v. Felts (Tex.Civ.App.) 260 S.W. 228; Stark v. Stout (Tex.Civ.App.) 174 S.W. 1014. In Houston Oil Co. v. Choate, supra, it was said:
The construction of the language of a grant as written is a question of law for the courts, unless some fact is raised, such as the river was called for by mistake. Burkett v. Chestnutt, 212 S.W. 271; Stark v. Stout, 174 S.W. 1014. The case of Rosetti v. Camille, 199 S.W. 527, opinion by the Chief Justice of this court, in discussing questions very similar to those in this case, is very much in point here.
The only theory on which a call for a river can be ignored is to show that it was made by mistake, just as any other call is shown to have been made by mistake. Stark v. Stout, 174 S.W. 1017. Now, the jury may have answered issues 3 and 4, as it did, because such answers would logically follow from answering issues 1 and 2 in the affirmative.