Case Name: RIO GRANDE & E. P. R. CO. v. KINKED et ux.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-05-15
Citations: 158 S.W. 214
Docket Number: 
Parties: RIO GRANDE & E. P. R. CO. v. KINKED et ux.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 158
Pages: 214–216

Head Matter:
RIO GRANDE & E. P. R. CO. v. KINKED et ux.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
May 15, 1913.
On Rehearing, June 26, 1913.)
1.Appeal and Eeeoe (§ 743 ) — Assignments op Eeeoe — Requisites and Sufficiency. Assignments of error making no reference to the motion for a new trial, as required by rule 25 for Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii), will not be considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2999, 3011; Dee. Dig. § 743. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Eeeoe (§ 719 ) — Assignments op Eeeoe — Necessity.
The giving of a peremptory instruction will be treated as raising a question of fundamental error, and will be reviewed without any assignment of error.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Erro, Cent. Dig. §§ 2968-2982, 3490; Dec. Dig. § 719. ]
3. Trespass to Tet Title (§ 9 ) — Sufficiency of Title to Support Action.
Where a canal company which had no right of title to land over which it constructed a canal gave a railway company verbal commission to construct a switch thereon, the railway company was a naked trespasser within the rule that prior possession, coupled with some sort of written title, is sufficient in trespass to try title as against a naked trespasser.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trespass to Try Title, Cent. Dig. § 12; Dec. Dig. § 9. ]
4. Appeal and Eeeoe (§ 909 ) — Presumptions in Support of Judgment.
In trespass to try title, where the trial court decided against defendant’s claim of title by limitation in a third party under whom it claimed, and the record did not show when the suit was filed, it would be presumed that it was filed in time to stop the running of limitations.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3675; Dec. Dig. § 909. ]
5. Trespass to Try Title (§ 38 ) — Presumptions and Burden of Proof.
In trespass to try title by a party relying on prior possession coupled with some sort of a written title against an oral licensee of a party who took possession without any right or title, the burden was on defendant to prove that its licensor acquired title by limitation.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trespass to Try Title, Cent. Dig. § 53; Dec. Dig. § 38. ]
6. Waters and Water Courses (§ 242 ) — Irrigation Company — Right of Way — Extent of Interest Acquired.
Where the document under which an irrigation company took possession of land recited that the width of its projected canal was 40 feet and the depth 3 feet, with the right under an act of the Legislature to claim, purchase, and condemn 100 feet in width, it acquired no more than an easement in the land.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Cent. Dig. §§ 147, 307; Dec. Dig. § 242. ]
7. Teespass to Tex Title (§ 18 )—Defenses —Rights op Third Persons.
That a third party had an easement in land did not prevent the recovery of title and possession as against an oral licensee of such third person.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trespass to Try Title, Cent. Dig. § 21; Dee. Dig. § 18. ]
8. Trespass to Try Title (§ 9 )—Sueeicien-cy op Title to Support Action.
In trespass to try title against a naked trespasser, where plaintiffs relied on prior possession under a deed, it was immaterial that the deed to their grantor did not cover the land in question where the grantor’s deed to them did cover such land.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trespass to Try Title, Cent. Dig. § 12; Dec. Dig. § 9. ]
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; A. M. Walthall, Judge.
Action by C. A. Kinkel and wife against the Rio Grande & El Paso Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Turney & Burges and Bates McFarland, all of El Paso, and Terry, Cavin & Mills, A. H. Culwell, and Jno. G. Gregg, all of Galveston, for appellant. Chas. A. Kinkel, F. G. Morris, and S. B. Gillett, all of El Paso, for appellees.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, C. J.
Appellees instituted this suit February 26, 1908, in trespass to try title to parts of the Mundy Heights addition to the city of El Paso, Tex., claiming same by three, five, and ten years statute of limitation. Defendant Rio Grande & El Paso Railroad Company answered by plea of not guilty, and specially that title to said land was in the El Paso Canal Company. Plaintiffs recovered judgment, from which this appeal is taken.
Because the assignments of error as filed in the trial court do not make any reference to the motion for new trial, as required by rule 25 of this court (142 S. W. xii), they will not be considered by this court. Davidson v. Patton, 149 S. W. 757; Murphy v. Earl, 150 S. W. 486; Railway Co. v. Ledbetter, 153 S. W. 646; Railway Co. v. Gray, 154 S. W. 229.
No fundamental error appearing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.