Black v. GoolsbeeBlack v. Goolsbee
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Walker
This wаs a suit in trespass to try title. Appellees owned the record title, but appellants claimed the land under the statute of limitation of ten years. The trial court instructеd a verdict for appellees, to which appellants duly excepted.
The father of appellants, ’ under whom they claim, ’ had cleared up a small field of four or five acres on the land in controversy, which he held under fence and which he cultivated every year for more than ten years. During this period of time neсessary to complete the occupancy of ten yеars, the record owners went uрon the land, cut and removed thе timber, and built a tram across it, which was used in removing the timber;also, at this same time, they entered and cut аnd removed timber from the little field hеld by Black under fence. While this timber was being cut and removed, Black asserted no claim to it, nor did he oppose the record оwners in cutting and removing it. There was nо occupancy for ten years by appellants, and those under whom they claim, before thе timber was cut, nor was there such occupancy for ten yeаrs after the timber .was cut.
In Evans v. Houston Oil Co., 211 S. W. 605, we had bеfore us a similar statement of fаcts. In dispbsing of this issue, we held that the entry by the true owner for the purpose of cutting and removing the timber, and the cutting and removing of the timber, wеre sufficient to stop the running of limitаtion in favor of the limitation claimant.
This principle is also recognized in South Tesas Development Co. y. Manning, 177 S. W. 998. Quoting from the ‘syllabus:
“The occupancy of uninclosed land for the purpose of cutting timber under authority from the true owner was sufficient to break the continuity of possession of an adverse claimant.”
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
other cases see same topic, and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes