Opinion ID: 2413244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Points On the Admissibility of Evidence

Text: The lumber company contends that the trial court erred in permitting Hart's surveyor to testify that Jarvis Hardin's wife and Sam Hardin had told him that they, the Jarvis Hardins, were cultivating two fields; that they considered the land to be Mr. Hart's; and that this was David Hart's field across the road from them. The objections were that the statements were hearsay and constituted opinions. David Hart had already testified that Jarvis Hardin and his wife were occupying and cultivating the land as his tenants. In a suit to establish title by limitation, statements by the occupier of land stating the nature and character of his possession are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule to show the intention under which he is maintaining possession. The statements are not admissible to prove the truth of ownership or the fact of cultivation but to show intent of the possessor. Hooper v. Hall, 1867, 30 Tex. 154. The declaration of a tenant is admissible under this rule. 1 McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evidence (2nd ed., 1956) § 797, pp. 589-591. The lumber company made no request that the testimony be limited. The point is overruled. The lumber company has other points on the admissibility of evidence. These points need not, and probably will not, arise upon a retrial of the case and hence will not be considered here. The judgments of the District Court and the Court of Civil Appeals are reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court for a new trial.