that the boundary was indefinite and that the counties had entered into the settlement agreement in a good faith attempt to settle the only issue of fact in the case — the location of the boundary. Id. at 397. The Yoakum opinion closes with a quote from the Lynn County case that states, “The rule is well settled that counties may settle their boundary disputes, and, where the line is established ‘in accordance with the law,’ their acts will be approved. In fact, it is the public policy of this state to look with favor upon peaceable boundary agreements between interested counties.” Id. at 398 (quoting Lynn County v. Garza County, 58 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex.Comm’n App.1931, judgm’t adopted)); cf. Cochran County v. Hockley County, 158 S.W.2d 102, 106 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1941, no writ) (<HOLDING>). This case is controlled by Yoakum. The
holding that state had waived argument because it could have been raised in an earlier appeal but was not and because it fell outside the scope of remand holding because line had been marked identified known recognized and acquiesced in counties could not agree to relocate it holding that a new trial could not be ordered until there was a finding the parties could not agree on complete reporters record holding that it is not known legally that an offense has been committed until there is a conviction holding that defendant who had copied plaintiffs perfume formula had a right to market it under defendants name because it identified to public plaintiffs product as competition