*1 SWEETEN - by when deducted in was tions. must defendant was without state thereto with reference conduct oí plaintiff’s determining action where very pertinent general officers is barred of limita- estoppel; calculated well issue addition, we notice insured. mislead cases, [Ed. Limitation Note.—For other see @= gen- manager Dig. Dig. general Actions, in a Dec. § Cent. 85(5).] repudiate of Mur- acts way seeks eral Trespass Try @=41(1) in- 6. he ever Title ray, not contend — Actions —Judgment. notify Murray members structed without Mere evidence of anj»- meth- suspended different use or to were od with proof that the of title delinquent as- regard to collection will not under a common source plaintiffs. delinquent. warrant fur- He those than sessments eases, Trespass to other see [Ed. Note.—For reinstatements, blanks nished @=41(1).] Dig. Title, Dig. 62; Try § Dec. Cent. general, receipts such neither @=870 Necessity of 7. Error — by Murray reports ceipts himto nor the Appealing. concerning reinstate- tained ments. judgment against dis- will not be several regards did not defendants who turbed appeal. those overruled. cases, Appeal and see [Ed. Note.—For other @= Dig. 3581-3583; Dig. Error, 879.] Dec. §§ Cent. TAYLOR et al. al. v. SWEETEN et Court, from District Uvalde Coun- 5564.) (No. ty; Judge. Burney, R. H. San Antonio. (Court, Texas. Action Mrs. Mollie and husband Re- Jan. MeFadden, Sweeten, 1916.) Charles C. W. April hearing, plaintiffs, and others. From Trespass Try @=>41(1) Title —Actions Sovereignty. appeal. the named defendants Reversed —Title from patent introduced a Where them; remanded as to affirmed as to defend- deceased and deeds certain of one heirs persons appealing. ants not name, but made no of the same deceased, persons Ellis, Uvalde, appellants. Love & recite, did not so and the deeds Linden, Antonio, appellees. W. O. of San sovereignty. deraign title from the Trespass cases, see [Ed. Note.—For other @= MOURSUND, Dig. February 23, 1911, J. On Dig. Try Title, Dec. § Cent. 41(1).] joined Mrs. Mollie Trespass Try — Chant, J. S. Kruger, @=41(2) sued G. W. C. Title Title of. from .Common Source —Proof Sweeten, Enloe, Friday, Charles D. C. L. S. plaintiffs' Where trespass try title, and seeking J. Barker another, while defend- trust executed G. and to recover 236 and G., their chain did claimed title from but person, plain- originally acres out granted not show the interest of both of title the claim tiffs did not establish common interest which to E. B. situated source; county. 9,1913, Edwards On June an amend- had. either of petition filed which W. T. Gardner cases, Trespass see [Ed. Note.—For other Dig. @=41(2).] Try Title, Dig. 62; was made a Cent. Dec. and G. W. 9, 1914, Chant was omitted. On June @=82 Running Adverse Possession — original petition, second amended Statute — Possession. C. W. Me- conveyance Where after of the one-half Fadden was also made a defendant. premises into hold- went suit was filed in the district court of Ed- ing premises the entire for the benefit of him- county, wards and was grantor, transferred to the self deed, statute failed record his county. there can be no reliance on the district court of Uvalde No citation limitations. Sweeten, issued was to obtain and no effort made cases, Note.—For Pos- [Ed. see Adverse upon him, nor service answer @= Dig. 468^471; Dig. session, 82.] §§ Cent. Dec. term, him until county. district court of Uvalde Defend- @=82 Running 4. Adverse Possession — citation, ant Enloe was never served with Color of Statute —Claim under Title. delay Where was a of over three Kruger and did not answer. to all the disclaimed as recording deed, grantee’s posses- months for. land sued of title sion was not color within the five- alleged that before the suit was filed of limitations. sold said "lands. Gardner Adverse Pos- @= 468-471; Dig. session, alleged purchased part §§ 82.] land on about and had con- — @=85(5) Limitation Actions Run- veyed the same MeFadden on ning of Statute —Absence from State. however, pleaded, He 1913. and ten 5702, declaring Under Rev. St. art. bar of any person against that, be a of the action have been be taken whom there shall plaintiffs’ be without cause of action shall the limits suit. MeFadden answered on March accruing state at the time of the ownership by him might time end east of said maintained, absence shall limited, No. 236 and a No. 235. He fur- the time as a time Digests and <@=j>For Key-Numbered KEY-NUMBER other oases see *2 REPORTER SOUTHWESTERN 184 694 E. the trustee; probate March. E. vey facts fail to show that the tee, duced Charles J. had failed to show title constitute Even if it were conceded lands lespie and the court afterwards concluded that from W. F. all of March admitted the other half for of They ney ties, Franklin for copy Gillespie conveying Enloe, Kruger was ney by' patent granting nothing by vey 235; not been favor of Fadden for the spectively day, Barter, ten ther on 9,1914. ed tion under utes. corded on vey claimed as to all Judgment deed from W. F. the, by ancillary 236 and 193 acres out of to secure a note in which recited .of show common introduced owned Plaintiffs to James ancillary administrator; recites that 25, 1897, by Thos. J. to the heirs soil. This conclusion proceedings 1889. All of these Elijah He also conclusions plaintiffs over evidence brother; copy April 17, 1913; her suit of not survey 236; administrator; himself, 1913; including attorney as to said 80 acres he answer- considered, a administrator of a from H. portions B. Elijah and was filed the suit be introduced $1,700, conveying Franklin contend that pleaded of limitation. Sweeten dis- No. 236 claimed except rendered guilty locating R. A. Franklin. by copy that his deed was a one half objection source. as to to H. Gillespie Chant. of law to Mollie source to Robert A. them and deed from the the facts deed of. lands; copy B. favor Mrs. purchased such lands istrator containing of a This deed Elijah 80 Elijah Gillespie Franklin substitute trustee from certain and ten estate Sweeten and and that he acres out of were filed. in evidence the Howard by For appointment dismissed as power power McLeary, No pleas three, and M. A. portion all interest plaintiff was correct. the court appointment lands; copy B. stated, B. Franklin the recitals to Wm. findings No. 236 lands sued substitute record on wise Gillespie; said sur a deed of trust on of limita- 236 plaintiffs Franklin Thos. of attor Civ. Thos. five, purpose Abigail admin- Texas, of sur- intro defendants with dated claimed a certain interest under attor dated, their acres. 40 S. trus June stat- fail also cure Mrs. take par of error was Fri- Gil sur- and W. D. Mc- re- of husband in deed of trust. J. and J. states tee a deed land, lespie lespie lespie. vious claim of ly vey accepting under the same nying preme holding that, fendant two evidence showed that the time of the grantor tors undertook to discloses what mon source cannot be shown Chief Justice lin show common source. The interest therein was claimed pellants deraign fails deraign lespie introduced and also deeds Fadden The deed $1,000, each introduction was claimed Chas. apparently App. 125, Supreme of 235 proven to half under each of and there is no evidence as to to show what deed will be Hendricks v. executed to Chas. a writ in the last-cited and the remainder under at the Court Sutherland to the justified The evidence shows that and another title from W. F. and Sweeten deraigns and 193 executed and the to parties conveyed and that Mrs. Mollie Abigail Gillespie No. 235.” acres, ,W. Masterson, what interest two conveyance. from F. Gilmer v. deed admitted that he claimed refused). evidence though Gaines, time of Court involved trust on evidence ownership secure Mrs. was of of a showing so it is I>. by acres out that each undertook to con- by title, title from W. F. presumption grantors title, the B. to W. F. convey. evidence them. Sutherland. Defendants Huffmeyer, and that the person as well as the sufficient was decided in the interest such evidence fails deraign Appellants’ to have the and in each admission that the same each unless the deed itself 77 Tex. Beauchamp, are the B. Franklin Gillespie, Gillespie of the E. portions be not shown several tracts of execution were written However, leading under (in of the two claiming of a opinions defendants by plaintiff title from by at the that case the the second (cid:127) approved owned which writ case No. 236 and instruments, of them W. W. F.W. Gil- F. as trustee contention 235 to se- following: which apparent- B. Frank- of plaintiffs payment evidence, Gillespie cases on survey other- gran- trus- what first, pre- said Gil- Gil- Su- Me- de- de- SWEETEN v. therein Gillespie MeLeary, ance of any clause: fore executed Threadgill Barker. limitation under the this trust the said free from thereof shall be hereafter the but was Threadgill county, Tex., the constituted not 1909, the two instances est he lived on the gill compliance are relied which defendants claimed gail August 15, part of hold other sufficient without correct dated October court erred 195-acre tract record the was mon to No mention of the record evidence conveyed duced gill 1, under deed and edged find “It is [3] Defendants 1908, have the trustees provisions rely upon and all claims aforesaid M. and wife he owned Brady that W. IP. Barker that acknowledged deraign source, and therefore said trust deeds are of record in evidence a deed October this thing wife to W. Myers 22, not recorded aof When Barker and Ohas. the lands and to have and Terrell upon. These eases virtue the court was not authorized under the lived went into with the dated October conveyance upon is made of Threadgill a fatal break in land. from Sutherland to Threadgill’s said lands shall be in Taylor, claim trust deeds balance of of this title, not record 17, v. holding renewing the on the land until of certain and J. that understood deed until Frey, recording 1904, theretofore sold on June controversy, which had shown or incumbrance land Barker’s to tell whether on contains above interest and terms and or his heirs v. five-year possession July execute Barker, his half interest in all in source to recover the and filed bought introduced, except in Martin, M. December $1,700 and filed for record “a .deed was held of D. it was title under 12, said lands 27, Taylor.” mentioned. while.” Thread- August 19, 24, Tex. August 19,1909, his Gillespie in hold; remaining subject W. W. 1904, statute. the half inter dated October is a release released the new one. due their upon provisions 1907, Brady deeds assumed contend the or thought of the land IS. was deed. The Barker the in Edwards Threadgill failure to he sold to created period following Mrs. Abi- extent recorded, acknowl any part Thread- of trust included defend- to have faithful plea assigns, only Friday construed to be F.W. accept- hereto- record A.M. to the intro could half 15, of law, J. court recorded session.” himself and another whole of the cotenant, holding the Civ. possession to the effect that Barker made of the of the cotenant any recovery session the same as harmless. peals, the trial court half interest under a deed The rule no disclosed lay. However, jection case. We notice the evidence shows able while.” inwas in eight to the fact registered; shown when, registered gill’s Barker Illinois. 11 W. record one no court ed, a deed as only did not state that based court duly registered, “If period, If Barker held California, its S. evidence is stated application being a basis objection having so App. time, holding court testimony days Friday person one who held half on the score that filing far as upon in period for the for three was made to the possession connection we call attention could was This 192, 851, the sixth announced in possession but the deed was executed in' 18S6 of the evidence between the date of a deed and date held until We think that a failure of the deeds for on for the nearly for record was a deed or deeds *3 for three months this would be property ruling court did not held claims not to have taken the view be to the delay, he held the direct we find disclosed there was the case of Jacks v. and no he county that limitation months, case, Barker to Gardner was not was the deeds had been in construed as possession until two that sold to not make assignment but we fail that feature such cotenant will property actual been that takes in 645, registered, question for himself and sufficient as proven, although years. Motley court when admitted is that limitation under the controversy the inure Commission point that one of time “lived made Barker unreasonable, charge him who is adversely possession McLean, err Gardner, not possession’ time in sold to five excused cited cases has duly registered. should be held deeds w'ere duly for controversy six necessarily was described v. Corn raised in so was not rais Dillon, an unreason awas opinion. complaint months, assume holding his there for a to see how days. Threadgill, required to Thread- month and Threadgill because it the benefit no excuse stayed in registered failure to deed the deed Gardner, question. a. such de facts as holding. state of that he but the and failure in this for his in record (Sup.) break every that, -The trial duly that pos- pos- Ap Ob not bar so 184 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER pose from Mrs. M. ber for F. conveyed favor of lespie, trustee, it was executed that W. F. lespie veying lor and March show common source introduction of said instrument from to J. H. sions cited show, be disturbed. that McEadden was sufficient to there is no merit assignments ing judgment manded. There common source was appellants, the reasons similar 311, suits for land. den and Sweeten Oregon contend Appellees The seventh [7] The secure introducing rehearing contended and cases was afterwards By has the tenth nor was there all of survey- We have should be deducted husband W. F. securing years’ the same land and was for the McLeary, trustee, E. Appellees §1,400, been court did not err judgment, 147 W. D. W. note sought are sustained. Motion for the evidence trustee. ninth and eleventh possession. lands,” holding that the court our former residence of Ohas. reversed, S. cited. in evidence the Tate in Dunn v. assignment proved E. is overruled. the same* debt as the already conveying part trust from the deed of contend in favor No. 236 and 210 acres (Court overruling established. alone claimed title to introduced in clear, of this court show Gillespie McLeary *4 Waggoner, persons, and also so far Rehearing. and the cause re the soil appeal comparison as to them will not Article held that evidence to tracts erroneous. opinion, contention. The prior No. 236 and 193 erred in under the deci- common source' husband to W. Mollie estimating judgment, dated Decem- overruled their motion applicable the fact that is contended holding assignments the sixth. Sweeten in a deed of was dated appellants Appellees they the other §1,000 convey- A. did McFad of from a render E. Gil- affects show, Dunn S. W. R. S. trust pellees Tay- pur- title one of contracts accordance all issues of in Contracts Error, character their contention that the for the extent of the interest affirmed on the of by such a quired therefore conclude that the evidence fails to 1897. It conjecture source to the note of Leary show that wholly notes secured to see is it Ohas. scribed and that therein are the same as those the two former deeds of in same, executed a a its release shall besides, tention Presumptions. We are is favor of the former trust W. F. and Chas. appear. them. But even this is a mere Where no court, not even shown CORBIN were shown to interest. each of for it mentions both and Gillespie conveyed or whether how same, “plus have failed to show title some other acreage governing thereof, the one W. F. undertook to survey. 236, is far toas oe 236 was shown to have been held with unable under W. F. and Error $1,400 Parties. them, findings of entirely any particular &wkey;>l47(2) 6, 1916.) April v. BOOKER. suijport $1,700 appellee. the intention of the Gillespie. It therefore follows that statement of facts. properly more theory given by operate to secure a renewal of the both of the other deeds of note, they acquired gave whether W. F. and Chas. rehearing the accrued claim but there was dated June that the lands agree can probable Rehearing others, trust and to renew the represent claim are to be or whether &wkey;>931(3) No. fact were of Texas. El Paso. as a release of both arising assert that the debt note for —Construction—In- judgment. in the construction It with a title dated to 1889 of must assume that prior possession 236, and, same, ais <§=o931(3)j Dig. therein held ais matter of is overruled. (No. 534.)* to secure the failed to show such lands or provides interest,” were resolved expounded Denied is not made the titles of discrepancy lands. guess, should be it is still —Review- therein, No. failWe even not de- to Mc- so, ac- if Digests KEY-NUMBER, other oases see same Key-Numbeited in all <5&wkey;For * pending Supreme Court. error Application for writ
Sweeten v. Taylor
184 S.W. 693
Tex. App.1916Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.