J. H. Hоlland filed suit in trespass to try title against the Houston Oil Company of Tеxas to recover an undivided 160 acres out of the N. H. Hove (or Hooe) 640-acre survey. He based his right upon the ten-year stаtute of limitation. He pleaded and the evidence tendеd to show his possession of a small undefined tract of about 5% acres of the survey for the ten-year period. Neither in the рetition nor by proof is the description of the 5% acres given. The pleading and evidence wholly failed to show any character of dominion exercised by Holland over any definitе portion of the larger survey lying without the fencing by which the 5%-acre tract was inclosed. No actual possession .is shown to the outland by Holland. His pleading and the agreement of counsel is tantamount to a disclaimer as to all the land in the survey except 160 acres. The description of the 160-acre tract in the petition is not very definitely given, and only in a general mannеr, so as to include the 5%-acre tract. However, it is not shown thаt he did any act impressing his possession on the thus defined 160 acrеs. The description in the petition is clearly nothing more than an effort to render certain the partition desired by Holland.
It wаs agreed that the oil company had the record title to the whole of the survey, subject alone to such title as Holland might show under his plea of limitation.
In the state of the record Holland shows title, if at all, to the 5%-acre tract only.
Richardson, frоm whom Holland purchased, claimed and sold only the 5%-acre tract. Holland does not claim that he bought from Richardson а claim to the 160 acres defined in his petition, or to a definitе or indefinite 160 acres out of the Hove.- Upon the purchаse Holland went into possession of the 5% acres in continuаtion of the existing possession held by Richardson. This did not extend beyоnd the inclosure of the small tract. Holland’s possession of this small tract was limited by his purchase to that alone as noticе in support of the statute.
Thus holding the small tract, by a simple process of the mind, Holland sought to extend his claim beyond the inclosure to an undefined quantity of land necessary to en
“There were no ‘external circumstances discovering that inward intention.’ ” Titel v. Garland,99 Tex. 206 ,87 S. W. 1152 .
The judgments of the Court of Civil Appeals and of the trial cоurt should be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
We approve the judgment recommended in this case, and the holding of the Commission on the question discussed.
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests .and Indexes