W. B. Hunter brought this suit against E. T. Jett in trespass to try title to part of lots Nos. 2 and 21, and all of lot No. 3, оf block No. 78 of the Fort Concho addition to the *93 city of San Angelo. The defendant filed a general denial and plea of not guilty and a plea of limitation. Hо testimony was offered in support of the latter plea, nor did the defendant аttempt to show that he had any title to the land.
undisputed facts show that survey 173, consisting оf 640 acres of land, was patented to Henry F. Fisher August 18, 1859; that thereafter, and prior to July 1, 1889, the title to said survey was vested in H. B. Adams and E. D. L. Wickes, each holding an undivided'one-half interest; that E. D. L. Wickes died June 11, 1893, and left as his only heirs his surviving wife, his mother, three sisters, one brother and a niece; that the plaintiff has acquired title" to all the interest in survey 1 73 that was оwned by the heirs o'f E. D. L. Wickes, except one of his sisters. The plaintiff introduced in evidence a conveyance from that sister, which was objected to by the defendant. The plaintiff introduced in evidence a map of the Fort Concho additiоn to San Angelo, which includes the lots sued for. He also proved by two practiсal sur-' veyors that the lots referred to were located on and a part оf survey 173.
The trial court instructed the jury that if they found that the land sued for is part of Survey Ho.. 173 to return a verdict for the plaintiff, and if they did not so find to return a verdict for the defendаnt. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, judgment' was' rendered accordingly, and the defendant has appealed.
All the assignments of error presented in apрellant’s brief, except one, relate to the action of the court in ruling uрon the admissibility of testimony. In addition to the deed from one of the Wickes heirs, which was objected to by appellant, numerous objections were made to evidence introduced by appellee for the purpose of showing that he had acquired title to the Adams half interest in the property. The objections urgеd and the questions sought to be presented in regard to appellee’s title аre now immaterial. The court submitted to the jury, and the jury found- in appellee’s favor as to the only question of fact that was necessary to entitle him to recоver. If the land in controversy was part of survey Ho. 173, then, as the undisputed evidence showed that appellee had acquired the interests in that survey of all the Wiсkes heirs except one, and as appellant was a trespasser withоut any title, appellee was entitled to recover the whole of the lаnd sued for, although he may not have acquired the other interests. (Sowers v. Peterson,
The fourth assignment of error is addressеd, to the action of the court in permitting appellee to introduce in evidence a resolution of the city council of San Angelo, authorizing the Fort Cоncho Bealty Company, appellee’s vendor, in making the Fort Concho addition, to disregard the Adams and Wickes addition to said city. The proposition under this аssignment is that the city of San Angelo had no power to vacate existing streets. It is not shown that the change referred to in any wise affected appellant. Article 419 of the Bevised Statutes authorized the city council to alter the streets оf the city, and whether or not that would include authority to entirely abandon or vaсate a street-need not be decided in this case for the following reasоns: First, the *94 record does not show that the city of San Angelo had acquired title to аny streets by the Adams and Wickes addition; second, the city is not complaining; and third, appellant has no interest in the question, it not being made to appear that the change in any wise affects any property or interest of his.
The sixth and last assignment relates to the same question, which was sought to be presented by a requestеd instruction to the jury. For the reasons already stated that instruction was properly refused.
ISTo reversible error has been shown and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.