The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-04-18
r,,r HIGHER COURTS.

=. novn by the Supreme
asn hen N IAerndon VS.. Vick,
~, c'" T...s April is'-Follow'n as,,r rs
s 'I'S, delivered by the supreme ''''
GUARDIAN. VS.. A. D.
rx. sui, TO establish ME- eo No First
~ n land. from "a IA rrc.mapded.
s ~ 7. Reversed ana re'l'u ,, aa,,,st
s v,cr brought this SUIT a agsra,n,ah
=. ~ persons. 'nsluuinls ,cun heirs
.ra also against tlic ,,.i, mis ME 10
Th pers9,nnss' n ares of land, n part OF
recover NJ the league grantee 70
|ower , na,s by the Mexican govern,
Am ,e,a The defendants were ci,.u
~ ~. or and none OF them an
publleaa.,ny,' The appellant, A. e. liern-
ed eSe,ps answried as the guarulan
HernsSyussr cderick Cole, alleged 20 Dc
txas Of ,mentis. He alleged that ms
eeRpV1h sole heir of Jeremiah Soie,
was ND MS such. held ,itic to the
hsso' az ~ the Vince league IN repiy
,.,nn aiir title to the lana; uhuIl Wy
~ limitations, llerndo'i niisE.u
". ward. Frederick Coie' nai ue,n
w .ncs lSi0. He Il so, ny cross p..
.usht afiimatively TO recover 'ne
AN, claimed under deed from
PAU, Vince. and produced IL complete
peI ,l,le from the grantee therein,
., ~ "" nj n number of mesne, con-
Fsuns liz also proved HIS adverse
49, ~ the land. having cuiiivat-
ss and Maid all taxes on the same
rs Sc W., nndcr duly registered deeds.
. ,S, cla,mod through an authen..
"ns sale from Vince 10 Edward
..ou executed In ,SS0. Appellant, to
n.V'I conyeyanoe from Dickinson 10
,,ah Cole. OF whom Frederick Coie
sole heir. offered a cerIlncd copy
Inc records Of Harris county OF the
ming paper c.,, Mas,
Il do hereby transfer al my righ',
and interest to jeremiah Cole
within deed" ,
dnlv witnessed aud acknowledged.
,n,if affected ~ the admission of the
,nant on the ground that II contained
s.,,,n,inn of the land In controversy
sny other land. and the appellant
raye in evidence the record books,
b,rh both the act of sale from Vince
Wilkinson and the above I per were
FT,d IL appeared from this book
me record Of the purportod transfer
Nh Immediately followed the record
(, certified copy OF the deed from
10 Dickinson. There were other
ns,ances connected with tho records
hese Instruments tending indirectly
NV tina, the transfer To Cole had
hay been written on the back OF
eed from Vince to Dickinson
trial court excluded the evidence
,he Jury and instructed a verdict
Defendant In error.
court of civil appeals held that the
Is ito the within deed" found IN the
|ored transfer from Dickinson to
niah Cole should be construed as
(rine to deed upon which the trans
WAS written, hut that the evidence
ia was properly excluded, because
bs no, sufilcien, to Justify the sub
lon to the jury of the question,
her or not the transfer WAS written
the copy OF the deed from Vince
dickinson. Upon tho first proposition
be members of that court cOncurred.
pon the second there was Il dissent
Peasants, j.
Fcr the reasons given In the opin-
y the court. we think the first qlics-
correctly decided. But we are also
he opinion that the court erred IN
upon the second point. We think
The transfer with its supporting
nee SHOULD have been admitted. and
the question whether II was written
copy OF the deed from Vince to
nson should have been submitted TO
tuTy 10 be determined IN the light
tho evidence In the case. The
ms for orr conclusion upon the first
are ably and satisfactorily stated
opinion of the court: and, upon
econi. in the dissenting opinion.
But i Ia contended that the long md
hued possession, use and enjoyment
land IN controversy under II claim
BY the defendant in error. and
under whom he claims, together
me evidence, that no claim had ever
rserted on behalf of the plaintin |
ror until the bringing of this suit,
conclusive In lis nature and tendency
'mpe the court TO preHime n sale |
Wtyance from Cole bnclS to the
u grantee, should II be found that
ever possessed the title. II has
sS been held In other jurisdictions,
we inference arising from long pos |
ana enjoyment of real estate to- |
WIN corrohoratlng circumstances |
~ 70 cogent as to make n the duty |
court TO Instruct the Jury to pre- |
want such IL not the rule IN this |
WIN us the presumption is one |
una u IL for the jury TO determine
a.c. OF the evidence in Erppnrt Of |
sumption. Reversed and rcmanded |
non by Gaines. G. j.