Case Name: EPLEY et al. v. O'DONNELL
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-11-27
Citations: 152 S.W. 741
Docket Number: 
Parties: EPLEY et al. v. O’DONNELL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 152
Pages: 741–743

Head Matter:
EPLEY et al. v. O’DONNELL.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
Nov. 27, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 15, 1913.)
1. Appeal and Ebbob (§ 1172 ) — Revebsal— Geounds.
Under Court of Civil Appeals rule 62a (149 S. W. x), providing that the reviewing court shall, if possible, correct an erroneous judgment, it is not ground for reversal that a judgment decrees costs against nonresident defendants served only by publication, but such judgment may be annulled in its erroneous part and in other respects affirmed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4555-4561; Dec. Dig. § 1172. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Ebbob (§ 563 ) — Statement op Facts — Statement op Evidence.
An approved statement of facts setting out the evidence and filed with the papers was a sufficient “statement of the evidence” with R. S. 1895, art. 1346, requiring that a statement of the evidence, approved and signed by the judge, be filed with the papers of the cause. .
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2500; Dec. Dig. § 563. ]
3. Appeal and Ebbob (§ 564 ) — Statement op Evidence — Time op Filing.
The statute authorizing the filing, without an order, of statements of fact after adjournment of court, applies to statements of evidence required to be filed under R. S. 1895, art. 1346, and hence a statement of the evidence not filed until two days after filing of the petition and bond for writ of error was not filed too late.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2501-2506, 2555, 2558, 2559; Dec. Dig. § 564. ]-
4. Advebse Possession (§ 117 ) — Special Verdict — Suppiciency.
A special verdict in a suit to establish a boundary line was not invalid for failure to find on one defendant’s plea of limitations, where it gave such defendant a limited time to remove a, fence; it being apparent therefrom that the jury considered and found against such plea.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Adverse Possession, Eec. Dig. § 117. ]
Error to District Court, Burnet County; Clarence Martin, Judge.
Action by James O’Donnell against Mrs. E. J. Epley and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
Reformed, affirmed, and motion for rehearing overruled.
J. G. Coolr, of Sinton, for plaintiffs in error. Gillespie & Altman, of Et. Worth, and Dayton Moses, of iBIurnet, for defendant in error.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Doc. 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:
JENKINS, J.
James O'Donnell brought suit against Mrs. E. J. Epley and others in the form of trespass to try title, but this was in fact a suit to establish a boundary line. Defendants Ollie Joy, John Joy, Joy Wallace, and Bonnie Wallace were nonresidents, and were cited by publication. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, except as to J. R. Wallace, in whose favor they found on his plea of limitation as to a particular portion of the land in controversy; he having disclaimed as to the remainder of the land. The court rendered judgment in accordance with said verdict and against all of the other defendants for costs.
Plaintiffs in error ask that this judgment be reversed, for the reason that the court had no power to render a personal judgment against the nonresidents for costs. The judgment against the nonresidents for costs is a nullity, and plaintiffs in error insist for this reason that it should be reversed and remanded.
Under rule 62a for the government of courts of Civil Appeals (149 S. W. x), this affords no ground for reversal; but so much of said judgment as decrees costs against the nonresident defendants is here vacated and annulled, and the judgment of the trial court is in all other respects affirmed.
Reformed and affirmed.