tbe interest, whether it be separate or the community estate, in tbe entire 1,500 acres is clearly stated in the inventory, and is prima facie true in an ordinary statutory proceeding in trespass to try title like this is.
Construing these proceedings, including tbe report of tbe sale and tbe order approving such report and tbe direction to tbe administratrix to make tbe deed to the purchaser according to tbe intention of tbe parties as evidenced by the record, we conclude that, regardless of tbe question whether tbe land was community or separate estate of W. R. Wooten, deceased, L. A. Abercrombie, tbe purchaser and grantee in the deed, acquired from sucb proceedings all of tbe interest belonging to the estate of W. R. Wooten, deceased, in tbe whole of tbe 1,500 acres, •and that, having so acquired all of tbe interest, tbe. defendants in error as legal representatives of tbe only child and heir at law of W. J. Wooten have no inheritable interest remaining therein.
Tbe third assignment of error challenges tbe action of tbe trial court and also that of tbe Court of Civil Appeals in refusing to sustain tbe contention of tbe plaintiffs in error that tbe evidence established their pleas of limitation of 5 years and also of 10 years. Unless tbe bolding of tbe Court of Civil Appeals upon tbe facts relating to an issue made by tbe pleadings and tbe testimony is so palpably and flagrantly wrong as to amount to a refusal to apply to tbe case tbe established law of tbe state, tbe Supreme Court is without authority to review it. One who seeks to establish title to land by virtue of tbe statutes of limitation assumes tbe burden of proof upon this issue, •and this proof must be clear and satisfactory. Guided, as we must be, by these rules of law, an inspection of tbe record compels tbe conclusion that this assignment should be overruled.
The fourth assignment of error questions tbe correctness of tbe ruling of tbe Court of Civil Appeals in sustaining tbe action of tbe trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial on tbe ground of newly discovered testimony. Evidently tbe Court of Civil Appeals concluded tbe plaintiffs in error failed to show sufficient diligence to entitle them to a new trial on this ground, and tbe Supreme Court bas no authority to review tbe conclusion, since tbe record shows tbe existence of a situation amply justifying it, and we therefore are of tbe opinion thiá assignment is without merit and should not be sustained.
The plaintiffs in error not baying presented any assignment of error based upon tbe action of tbe Court of Civil Appeals in affirming tbe judgment of tbe district court denying any recovery upon their cross-action, and tbe amended petition of tbe defendants in error having sought a recovery for an undivided one-fourth of tbe 1,500 acres described therein, as the heirs of W. J. Wooten, deceased, tbe only heir