*1 H. Petitioner, James BUTLER,
v. HANSON, H. (Bud) Respondent.
L.
No. B-1233.
Supreme Court of Texas.
June *2 with
tion of land had been enclosed 1,000 approximately over acres of ranch; and lands of ranch, including land portion this of the by a controversy, had been surrounded substantial fence.
The answered jury favorably issues Hanson. was Judgment plaintiff rendered that take Butler nothing. Appeals The of sit- Court Civil ting at El Paso affirmed. 432 S.W.2d After a careful of the review authorities, and the opin- we are of the has, ion that the been substance, case properly by Ap- decided Court of Civil peals; accordingly, and we affirm its hold- ings major points at issue. Be- of cause in- apparently an erroneous advertent in the judgment inclusion portion trial court of a small Butler’s fence, the land lying outside reversed, judgments below are cause is court with remanded to trial Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy Laughlin, & correct its judgment. instructions to Browder, Jr., Goolsby, W. B. Durward M. Midland, Bankston, pe- and Milton L. for The area Texas land in this of Western titioner. square which was laid off in sections mile each. supposed were to contain acres Milstead, Jones, Big & L. Guilford Jones lands, owned, among The other Hansons Spring, respondent. for Immediately to the south Section 46. the surface GREENHILL, by in 1963from purchased Butler Justice. problem people some named Nunn. The application The for writ of error was boundary Sections between granted in this dealing case with adverse Hansons, according to the possession of grazing land to determine if opinion testimony, that Section were of there was evidence support findings to the “Hanson 46 extended to the south of the jury, to review the treatment survey prepared for map fence.” A by the Appeals Court Civil of a former shortly purchased the land shows before opinion by case, Court, this the Orsborn 3; that the fence is on Section Deep v. Corp., [Orsborn Rock Oil Tex. subject of 3 is the encroachment on Section 281, 267 dealing with “casual 781] survey map prepared litigation. The fences.” hereto in the dissent for set out Butler is of Civil opinion the Court
The suit was brought by Butler in tres- Ap- pass page at 561 of 432 S.W.2d. try title to 157.22acres of surface drawing pended opinion a crude to this estate County. portion Glasscock A It sets by Bud Hanson. purchased made at the trial by Butler had been boun- understanding occupied rough out the defendant Hanson and his sections, are in- his fences predecessors daries of the for years over and used in the boundaries. X marks them for dicated with grazing purposes. por- Hanson, opinion in the out Court Civil or those found supplement facts Appeals. here those deraigned title or We under whom Hanson by referring specifically the tes- to some of possession, had had adverse same, timony. controversy, using the the land in longer, prior period of ten Bud who was 60 at the time 28, 1962; that the land had December trial, familiar the land all had been with during a sub- kept enclosed such *3 in his life. He the fence remembered livestock; fence, turning capable stantial of question it since being where was pur- for the that fence was maintained the 1932, sec- In Bud’s father had leased 11½ maintaining establishing ex- pose of tions, including 46 in the Section of the land possession and control clusive tenant, Berry, at Clyde a who testified right. controversy in claim of below, Berry As be the trial. will noted noted, jury As the was asked about above fences, including the maintained the one possession of years ten or more adverse land question. in had lived Bud date, 28, prior that to December 1962. On in 1934and 1935. with his mother and father in for Butler signed an affidavit Hanson 1934, ‘30’s, early He testified that in the part said that a
which Hanson
put
the whole
“We
a net fence around
later)
a month
(purchased
3
Butler
2 or
my
ranch.
were
dad and me
We’
fence,
owned
might be
that he
within his
men,
net fence
my
3
brothers-in-law.”
interest
part
no
claimed
barbed wire
was added to the three-strand
date,
jury
therein. The
found that on
put up a
fence
because “I wanted to
better
28, 1962,
making
Hanson was not
December
sheep.”
to hold
right
part
a claim
to that
3
Section
Hanson
he “heired”
46
testified
Section
his
found that Han-
within
fence.
also
got
a deed
46 and
1958 and
to Sections
son did not conceal from Butler his
family
2
his
In the
from
3
to that
within
1952,
between 1949 and
he rebuilt
had the means
and that Butler
fences, put
post
fence
each
new
between
ascertaining
claim of
readily
continuously
posts
old
main-
and had
right.
will be
The effect
this affidavit
the fences
tained them. The land inside
discussed later herein.
continuously
grazing;
was
used for
there never had been a time since 1932
The main
find
attack
quit
using
he had
he called
“Sec-
what
ings
is that
46”;
e.,
the fence
tion
i.
the land down to
support
findings.
evidence
question.
situation,
duty
In
it is our
to view
such
light,
the evidence in its
favorable
most
repeatedly
re-
testified
infer
considering only the
evidence
garded this
his south
south fence
support
findings,
ences
and re
line,
46 and 3.
the line between Sections
jecting the evidence and inferences which
his fence
He intended to include it within
contrary
findings. Cartwright v.
are
and use it.
said he didn’t own Section
He
Canode,
502,
Tex.
ments: in cattle point Repub- this Court this strayed question, Stetson, down to the acres lic National Bank of Dallas v. here, case, whereas was that this there In that (Tex.Sup.1965). constantly grazing. possessor, In running used the adverse after unquestionably Orsborn possession, between the land for title adverse pos- signed owned and that adverse claimed acknowledgment written of ten- session, unfenced, tract, ; e., ancy awas 60 acre i. land as he had held the Texas; owner, Davis; belonged tenant of State so true Wirt possessor skip adverse had to an unfenced he was then occupying, and never had occupied tract to claim the acres. Here the tracts claimed that coun- lands contiguous operated ty adversely Davis; are were to the claim of Wirt Orsborn, possessor unit. In had knew of no one who asserted simply somebody any Davis; against made use such claim arid Wirt above, Here, any right, else built. as set out the char- he “makes claim to changed any part” a “net land in acter of fence was interest to con- posts put troversy. fence” and new between each old post which would be evidence that certainly carefully authorities, reviewing After And final- made it his fence. Court, quoting opinion, from an earlier evidence, ly, undisputed not only summarized the rule as follows: Hanson, but from the tenants both sides (Jack Clyde Berry) the fence consummated, Cook “A limitation title once fence was perfect other as full and absolute as *5 reputation title, and that the the com- subsequent oral by and it not lost munity was property down to that by the statement limitation owner property. was Hanson’s by never intended to claim limitations.” at 257 260.
We turn now to the effect affidavit of December 1962. It was Since statement Stetson was gratuitously statement, Butler said he ex- executed. written case in other was the plained opinions Stetson, that there was an encroachment ap- cited the above rule drew Hanson a map. plies statement; Hanson denied it applies written little to a explanation Butler made this or drew to the Hanson affidavit. any map. Butler, him He said that a stran- point ap remains: there are One him, ger say came to him to that he was in the north 7.34 acres proximately buying the surface of needed west are corner of Section 3 which outside get the affidavit bank loan. not, did Hanson’s fence. Hanson was, course, not, it; reason, The affidavit ad it does claim but for some missible of Hanson’s the land description included fence; and, to the land within the nothing.” as to It which Butler “took charge, stopped trial court’s agreed ar running by oral counsel for limitations. was gument judgment for deter before Court that mine whether under his reformed to the trial court should be above, set out had claimed the land of Civil as his exclude this acres. The Court own under a claim to make this correction. declined prior or more the courts Accordingly, judgments to December reversed, cause is re below are and the hand, On the other if title limi instructions manded the trial court with already perfected tations had Han to reform its so as to exclude son, the affidavit pur would not serve the 7.34 acres. pose conveyance of a title SMITH, opinion Dissenting defeat limitations. The latest J.
APPENDIX *6 .t, nn ¾,/-£/
g against stand the trial should SMITH, court (dissenting-). Justice discharge his failure because Butler’s problem to respectfully dissent. a cross action Hanson did not file burden. line boundary is not where is resolve title to the acres under establish 149.88 by 46, owned between Sections pleading by issue joined fence. He pur- of which and Section Three, Five, guilty Ten and the two Febru- by Butler on form the Nunns chased Twenty-Five Year of Limitations Statutes question is whether ary The sole Texas, plain- of the bar to State as a that Hanson is not there tiff’s Ten Year cause of action. The Texas longer has of ten for a only Statute Limitations is involved. appropriation made “an actual and visible occupancy and deny Butler does not 3 under of the acres of 157.22 shown, but, has does right compliance with the stat- claim knowledge contend that had in Articles utory requirements contained that the acres of 3 was under 149.88 Annotated Civil Vernon’s occupancy fence and that mere of land the most that at Statutes.” admits without intention to it will appropriate For a only he is entitled acres. to 149.88 support a title under the Statute Ten-Year surveys picture better of the location Limitations. involved, plat appended which accu- is pleas In response the land of limi- rately that 149.88acres of defendant’s shows tations, controversy (the pleaded estoppel acres claimed the plaintiff on the ground conduct, owned Butler) is fenced in with his own acts especially disclaiming boundary writing The north the act Hanson. the south line of Section claimed in the land in- interest By line ex- volved. plat is shown on the motion for after both judgment parties rested; tending from A B. admitted that motion verdict; trial; after separating points never been a fence one motion for has new supra Appeals; tract Article Court of motion for other. Civil “ and, court; provides: rehearing points is an in that ‘Adverse Possession’ ac- argument land, Court, plaintiff, tual in this appropriation visible Butler, consistently under a has commenced continued contended action of the trial hostile to the court and the inconsistent with and Court Civil erred in failing sustain his Emphasis another.” added. respective points, motions and means that there must some evidence which car- ried probative forward to force that Hanson has this Court the contentions showing *7 (1) that for Butler had required period the time commenced shown and established a record to possession title the continued under a claim of 157.22acres described in pleadings; Defendant, Hanson, his right (2) inconsistent with and hostile to has any not any part shown record to There is no of a title Butler. evidence “claim 3; of Section (3) right”, as in Defendant has not shown pointed will be out detail any evidence of opinion. possession later in adverse as re- this quired 5515, by is, ten-year Article that the moment, For necessary the it is to state limitations; statute of the defendant (4) trespass that filed try Butler this suit in to that, failed prove to right”, a “claim of in he 22, 1965, entry failed upon title on to show that purchase by his Sec- after his June tion 3 was with the intent to the land 15, February deed the from Nunns on 1963. as his own and to hold it for himself to the discharged admits that Hanson Butler his and, (5) failing all exclusion of others proving burden in title. There- record estopped to find that Hanson was to fore, Hanson makes contention and no any right to actually that he had a claim of any holding no can be basis for that land within Section by nothing” judgment the “take rendered that, plead- non-claim judicial this admission although Butler argued It is With any issue the can no answer point properly estoppel, ed was not find de- that the possession not adverse concerning preserved. agree. Butler I cannot a claim actually various only estoppel, in the pleaded but fendant Em- land within 3.” mentioned, right any Section he used above motions “non-claim”, phasis added. “disclaimer”, “estoppel”, terms “waiver”, and “ad- admissions” “judicial important It is to note that defend- against in connection missions interest” ant, Hanson, gained right title judg- for argument his motion with his that by possession adjoining the- granted. ment should have been 3, parents. deed dated 1949 from ory been abandoned. estoppel has never June only conveyed parents verdict Butler’s motion for after conveyance their son and made no statutory in stating what meant parents ever If the of Section 3. theory of right”, “claim of also stated the possession there claimed title adverse Therefore, estoppel. rule in Theriot v. showing force probative evidence 181, Smith, (Tex.Civ.App.19S3) such fact. There is no evidence applies Paragraph of this motion here. F. use, parents title established limitation reads: any part claim and of Section Therefore, considering right’ “F. The 'claim of to which the evidence, decision, conclusively con- entry statute refers means that the of the period of fines Hanson to the time limitation intent claimant must with 1949, deed, and 3, date of his own, claim the land as his hold it for June either the date of December himself to the others. This exclusion all affidavit; date date of the right’ ‘claim of is an element of essential February purchase Butler from the possession. has claim of Nunns— 15, 1963, 22, 1965, the date or proven case,„ in fact the June privity filed this There estate suit. is no testimony of Hanson is that there was re- parents, between Hanson and right, such claim of because Hanson un- quired under Article Anno- Vernon’s equivocally swore from the witness stand tated Civil Statutes. he never owned or claimed of Section and that his and the affidavit court, charge, The trial in its defined statements therein to the effect “peaceable possession”, posses- “adverse never any part owned or claimed sion,” “claim of term “hos- right” and the 3 still remains true and correct. In specific General and issues were sub- tile”. connection the defendant testified mitted. The issue reads: did know where the section was; is, that he did not know south * * * “Do find from line of Section 46 or the location * ** defendant, those or north line of and that never deraigned whom Hanson or any part knew that en- of Section 3 was person through either closed within his tenants, person partly tenant *8 or event he part never claimed of Section tenants, partly through a or tenant 3. This is and constitutes judicial a ad- peaceable have had and held and adverse mission. This is a repetition of the affi- controversy land of the Hanson, davit of the defendant which also suit, cultivating, using enjoying in itself constitutes against an admission any period years, the same for of ten repeated from, interest. When the witness longer, prior to December 1962? stand and recognised and as reaffirmed ¡admission. the truth judicial constitutes a jury answered: “Yes.” special part 3; specific ownership of the
One issues sub- of mitting only question taxes; of “claim of no evidence of no rendition for right”, reads: of this land is contained mention preceedings predeces- estate of Hanson’s * * * you
“Do find from the evidence title, Hanson; sor in no evidence that Will affi- signed at the time Hanson Hanson executed in- conveyances or davit December 1962 he was affecting describing any part struments making right part to that controversy, although land in he Section 3 within his gas right executed oil and leases fence?” way covering deeds 46. He did jury answered: “No.” conveyance execute an easement across Section 46 so that Butler construct could specific findings jury on the Other and maintain High- a road from the State right of claim of were that Butler (cid:127) land; way to Butler’s this easement de- relied on Hanson’s affidavit that Butler had scribed no As to this Section 3. readily ascertaining means grant, gave testimony Hanson which claim of and did not fail to exercise makes clear that no there is evidence of such means. right” by “claim of Hanson. Such testi- mony follows: It an well settled that adverse claim- right” ant must establish “a claim which conveyances respondent “One adversely includes an to claim land intent pertaining executed to Section 46 was an to the true All owner. of the evidence petitioner easement he sold to the knowledge shows that Hanson had purpose petitioner allowing of Section 3 under the same to construct and maintain a road from the fence with point Section 46. out now Highway petitioner’s State land. pur- evidence which shows 3; easement describes no land in Section chased and went into however, as to the of the re- intentions deed only which described Section 46. spondent grant, as to this he testified: is that knowledge that a Section was * * * “Q you give still mean Jim fenced with ap- 46 until Butler land, right-of-way Butler a don’t proached he, regard him in to whether you? purchased claimed the land later by Butler. Hanson consistently main- easement, yes. “A got He has only tained that he claimed Section 46. him, Each inquiry “Q you time That during give what meant to made trial, Hanson unequivocally confined his isn’t it?
claim to the land described his deed. most, “A right. At That’s evidence reflects that Hanson mistakenly believed that his Section 46 ex- “Q your And if Section 3 extends within tended to the fence line. would unduly fence an give meant to him easement lengthen this opinion quote all of the you? regardless, didn’t section evidence which amounts to “no evidence” support answer to the to the got “A He has the easement sec- issue, but, hand, on the other shows tion. at no time was “making a claim of right”, as found “Respondent thought answer testified specific to the F right.” issues as to “claim to was plat on the line I drawn *9 46; There is no any verbal claim on the south line of Section it, That “Q claiming Bud? far as So any was unaware you do asking I am about. What what He said: his fence. within say you it? you claim mean when you include “Q is 46 mean That Well, it run on and maintain “A I stock your isn’t it? mine, fences, it figured it and-1 Well,, “A it’s fenced. fence line. my was in “Q any Is on Baker “Remarkably, there what Mr. intentions four fence trial, later, has as the line 46? were the same. shown south the time of at He testified: “A got I don’t know. I ain’t none there. got
I have a south gotten fence on 46. deed “Q you never And have a deed or such as instruments “Q That fence —the fence is on the south 3, Block 35 ? a deed contract for to Section you, of 46 as known to isn’t it? “A No. right. “A That’s have, you? do don’t “Q you And claim
“Q your If your land —if there on you nothing 46 includes land Section 3 about Section “A I don’t know you don’t didn’t know it over know — up on this put sign “Q you ever Have years, you? did or two? year until the last up3 No, “A I didn’t know it. The fence has put I sign put a on 3. “A I never have my been there all life. on
one
“Q you my But was —I think “Q it, Where? fairly you answered it didn’t did know — you? it, every gate I gates, “A both All over have. “A No. “Q 3? But on any part
“Q you Did know whether Section,3? might it include a it nothing about know “A I don’t belong me. don’t No, “A sir. want it? you don’t “Q And the fence was
“Q you Do know whether with it was or on 46 or where guess I’d I No, don’t don’t want “A I line ? respect the section it. I wanted get if 46, it Well, presumed it was on I “A pay intended never “Q have You long. so you? 3, have taxes on way actually pay- know one it, why didn’t I “Q But should own “A I don’t it, pay I’d another? it? If owned ing taxes them. “A didn’t. Sure in Section any land don’t “Q You to Section of Hanson’s “The extent you? do following by the is embodied “A No. attorney: solicited *10 “My and I
“Q (Bud) name is Sir? L. H. County, partA reside in Texas. Glassock No, “A sir. South, 3, 35, Township 4 Block Section Texas, might be en- County, Glasscock it did not cover “Q remember You do boundary my fence. closed within the 3, you? don’t part and claim own no of said Section no interest therein. No, “A sir. L. H. Bud Hanson “/s/ not, did it? It did
“Q (Bud) L. Hanson”1 H. No, sir, “A I don’t own Section evidence, including In view of all the give a you didn’t intend lease “Q And admissions, mo- judicial Butler’s part Section 3 whether should for after verdict tion not, you ? your fence or did granted. have been 3, knowledge “A I don’t I wouldn’t first own Section admits property. leasing part another man’s that a under his Section was prior just fence was when told him Butler Now, “Q my question. answer Let’s to the affidavit. execution of the above give 3? did not intend a lease The found that Hanson was “making part right” a claim to that No, “A sure didn’t. Section 3 within his fence and knew that intending Butler was use the affidavit “Q your it was fence or out Whether in closing purchase from the Nunns. your did you? strength positive On the written non-claim, proof purchased the “A I don’t own Section I wouldn’t $16,000.00. land for a consideration of lease it. No given reliance can be to the state- “It is to be noted the identical factual situ- ment of the evidence of adverse ation exists as relates the fence opinion set out of Civil Court between Section 46 and (owned Appeals. opinion intermediate court’s is, sister), bearing makes no reference to the evidence is47 within the 46. To fences upon right question estop- this land Hanson testified made pel. my viewpoint, From Court should portion dates, take key into consideration three land, although his sister’s his use of e., i. December June the land is the same. February Ap- Court of Civil peals rejected petitioner’s contention of petitioner “Prior to the time purchased knowledge evidence of acres respondent Section 3 the disavowed of Section 3 was under fence with Sec- claim by following the execution of the 46, hence, tion no evidence of hostile claim affidavit: by stating that long as the adverse “[a]s claimant was using the land and maintain- “STATE OF TEXAS ing here, a fence of nature we present “COUNTY OF GLASSCOCKJ it was him to necessary do feel me, “Before the undersigned authority, have ap- knowledge absolute that the claimed peared HANSON, who, L. H. (BUD) tract has been a of Section 3.” This being sworn, duly agreed me first Court stated: has never that such is the properly
1. The above affidavit was
notarized.
*11
enclosure,
the
intent
claim
situated with reference to
can be no
to
There
law.
is,
es-
proof
plaintiffs’
that
as
land
it would be
in the
of
in this case
absence
used,
possessed,
fence
that
that
the
sential
knowledge
Hanson had
unequivo-
way
a
to
occupancy of
cultivated
such
as
in
3. Mere
was on Section
cally give
of
adverse
appropriate
notice
defendant’s
any
to
land
intention
without
it,
distinguished from
as
other
of limitation.
claim to
support the statute
it will not
he
Co.,
pasture
in
same
as to which
Tex.
lands
the
Wright
Compress
156
v. Vernon
”
making
he
no claim.’
Mills
admits
was
474,
Nona
(1956);
296
517
S.W.2d
14,
Wright,
102
101 Tex.
S.W.
Company v.
the
case
is of
view that the
The writer
Hardin,
Tex.
58
(1907);
1118
Sellman v.
319,
McMinn,
v.
161 Tex.
of Brohlin
(1882).
86
directly
point
(1960) is
420
In that
question we
here.
on the
have
opin-
The evidence set out in the Court’s
case,
seeking
pos-
title and
a
Brohlin
There is
ion amounts to
evidence.
possession
by
of
an
session
adverse
complete
of
virtue
absence
evidence of
the Ten Year Statute of Limita-
of
under
Intention
intention to claim the land.
six
claiming
Brohlin was
the south
his
tions.
possessor
claim it as
the
of land to
10,
9,
Lot
adjoined
of Lot
which
lo-
feet
of adverse
own is an essential element
City
in an
to
of Ama-
cated
addition
the
possession
such
the absence of
question:
the fence lo-
a
rillo.
Was
possessor
intention the
cannot mature
Court,
This
cated on Lot
Lot 10?
an-
9 or
belonging
limitation title
land
complied
Moore,
holding that Brohlin had
with
Tex.Civ.App.,
other.
v.
Orlando
statutory requirements
all
the
contained
(1955,
e.).
contentions. The
remands
the
Court
to
cause
the trial court with instructions
Republic Na-
in
holding
the case of
judgment
that the
to
be reformed
exclude
Stetson, Tex.Sup.
Dallas v.
tional Bank of
the
acres
not
the
within
enclosure.
257,
application
has no
390 S.W.2d
power
This Court
is without
to
case,
divide
the
rejected
this Court
here.
In that
the 157.22acres into two tracts. The ver-
acknowl-
that two
the bank
contention of
dict
the jury
is indivisible. The land
per-
tenancy by one
edgments
who
in controversy
a tract
is
of 157.22 acres.
ineffective
by limitation were
fected title
in
case,
admits
in
his brief
the Court
our
In
to defeat a limitation title.
of Civil judgment
that
the
reaf-
that
writing in
Hanson disclaimed
nothing”
Butler “take
support
is without
he did
firmed
witness stand
the
Hence,
in the
prays
evidence.
had never claimed
own and
South,
judgment be reformed
to exclude
Township 4
of Section Block
acreage
the
without
Texas,
“might
his fence. Under
County,
the
which
Glasscock
circumstances, the
boundary
my
entirety
verdict
is an
be
the-
enclosed within
any part
aside,
and if
of it is set
the entire
executed this disclaimer
fence.” Hanson
from the
the land
purchased
Co.,
before Butler
verdict falls. North
Atlas
v.
Brick
$16,000.00 and reaffirmed
Nunns for
“Under our and, any part suit, it is set entirety, cultivating, using enjoying if years, aside, the entire verdict falls. the same for of ten cases conform Em- judgment must in all 1962?” longer, prior December verdict, be but one phasis govern and there can To aid and added. case, and it neces- judgment final answering special issue no. sarily others, following but ver- among follows there can be gave one Court must follow “By dict and that as right’ ‘claim of instruction: returned, the same used, unless expression verdict is here meant is not entirety set aside. its as his with intent claim the land permissible to set aside the verdict own, Objec- hold it for himself.” judgment upon and to render instruction and tions were made only remains. would be grounds that there was testi- issue re- statutory just rules mony pos- violate deraigned that Hanson title or to, ferred but would be to violate disputed tract of land from session of *13 guaranty by jury. trial constitutional any person; testimony there was no show- successfully company having brick any The ing any conveyance from challenged re- in a material predecessor Hanson; the verdict there was in- spect, its validity as a whole was deraigned title that Hanson volved, and the trial erred court person through either or or a tenant setting aside, tenants, the verdict and the Court partly partly in and person or Appeals affirming erred in Civil through a tenant or tenants. This writer ruling.” agrees with Butler that the and instruction concerning possible issue de- Hanson’s The second alternative if point, sus- raignment person of title from some other tained, require would a reversal of the confusing and prejudicial to Butler. entire entry judgment cause and the re- especially true was no where there manding the cause for a new trial. The conveyance by or otherwise of deed point: “The Appeals Court of Civil erred parents Hanson’s acres from in failing refusing to hold that the charge jury Hanson. The allowed the trial court’s right’ definition of ‘claim of base its no. 1 affirmative answer to issue applied insufficient in law as to the possession by type some Hanson’s facts of the case.” parents when the issue should have been Hanson, my opinion, In defendant, point confined should be sus- to whether tained. The right” definition of made right, “claim of or had such claim etc. showing the form of together issue are record is no. void misleading in that intention of to claim the parents was lead to believe that it controversy. equally could take land in It is into consideration true possession predecessors of Hanson’s evidence that Hanson ever is no 46, when, in title to Section an until there is no formed intent to claim the land evidence of claim to after Butler him that the fence informed parents. was located on Section 3. Special judgments issue no. 1 of the trial court reads: “Do find * * * re- the Court of should be evidence that de- Civil fendant, L. here rendered (Bud) H. or those versed deraigned whom Hanson title and title or recover person petition. in his In through either or described tenants, event, prayer tenant or re- partly person Butler’s for alternative partly tenants, through cause granted a tenant lief should entire have trial. peaceable and held the trial a new pos- and adverse remanded to court for
APPENDIX