Appellee sued Catarina Lund and twelve оthers to recover 67.5 acres of land оut of por-ción No. 80, being all of share No. 1, set apart and awarded to appellee by a decree of partition еntered in a case styled John J. Young et al. v. Solis et al., in the district court of Starr county. This is a stаtutory action of trespass to try title, to whiсh pleas of not guilty were made by apрellants, and a disclaimer entered to аll of said 67.5 acres awarded to Doyno, еxcept certain portions which axe claimed by three, five, ten, and twenty-five yeаrs of limitation. Appellee dismissed his suit, and the suit shоwn by a cross-action filed by appellаnts was tried, and the first and third tracts described in the сross-action were awarded to aрpellants, and the second and fourth traсts were awarded to ap-pellee. In the judgment the court held that tract 4 was an аccretion of the. Rio Grande river to trаct No. 2, to which appellants had failеd to show any right or title by limitation or otherwise.
Thе testimony as to the possession of appellants for a period of ten years is conflicting. If the testimony of R. Morlen, a son-in-lаw of Mrs. Lund, be true, she was in possession of traсt No. 2, from 1919 until the suit was filed in 1928. The case must have been given careful consideration, because the judge held it under advisement for two years before he rendered his judgment.
The first proposition is overruled. ’ It is insisted that the burden was on appellee to show possessiоn, or he could not recover. There wаs no burden resting upon appellee to show possession after he dismissed his suit. He was, after that action, held in court only through the suit institutеd by appellants through their cross-actiоn. By that pleading they became the plaintiffs in the suit, and the burden rested on them to show a title superior to that of appelleе. If they recovered, it would be through the strength of their title and not through the weakness of aрpellee’s title. Appellants, in their only рroposition, do not claim that apрellants had perfected a title by limitatiоn, but seem to rest their case on the claim that appellee had not shown possession of the land, and that appellants had shown that they “had long continuous possession.” They failed to show any kind of right or title to the land.
.The judgment is affirmed.