Opinion ID: 2370767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Title by Limitation

Text: The holding of the trial court denying plaintiffs a recovery under their plea of the five-year statute of limitations of Texas is not before this court. Plaintiffs' remaining contention that the evidence establishes their title under the ten-year statute of limitations, Article 5510, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes is without merit. It is well settled that in order to establish title under the ten-year statute of limitations, possession must not only be actual, but also visible, continuous, notorious, distinct, hostile and of such a character as to indicate unmistakably an assertion of claim of exclusive ownership in the occupant. See Heard et al. v. State et al., 146 Tex. 139, 204 S.W.2d 344 (1947). Plaintiffs' claim is based, in part, on possession and use of the property by tenants. In this regard, the law is well settled that a tenant cannot assist in the building of a limitation title for a landlord beyond the actual land leased. See Williams v. Fuerstenberg et al., Tex.Com.App., 23 S.W.2d 305. With these general rules in mind, we consider plaintiffs' limitation claim. After the deed from Engelman, Inc., to T. L. Humble, father of plaintiff Reiter, was executed in 1924, Humble went into possession of the north six acres of Block 223. The only evidence in the record, which indicates that Humble actually used the specific .8 acre in question during the time he lived on this land, came from the witness, Mr. R. M. Hughes, who lived to the south of the Humble tract. According to Mr. Hughes, Humble used the western part of the tract for farming for a long time. However, there is no evidence as to what constituted a long time. While the record is not clear, it appears that the western end of Block 223 was completely enclosed by fences around 1934. Wesley Van Matre, Humble's only tenant, testified that he began working the land in 1941, and worked it each year until 1949. According to Mr. Van Matre, he pastured cattle on the enclosed.8 acre during these years, but further testified as follows: Q. And isn't it a fact that other neighbors put stuff in this canal strip out there, and used it for grazing? A. Well, before I went there they did. Q. In other words, the District made no objection to letting you graze stuff on there, as far as they were concerned? A. Yes, Sir. Q. In other words, you did it with their permission and consent?       A. Yes, we done it with their consent. Humble moved off the land some time before 1943. Thereafter, on August 26, 1944, he executed the deed to plaintiff Reiter, wherein he conveyed the north six acres more or less, of Block 223. Plaintiff Reiter never came onto any part of this land from the time of execution of this deed, until after this suit was filed in 1958. Therefore, any adverse possession by her would have to be through tenants. As noted above, Wesley Van Matre worked the Humble tract from 1941-1949. Upon leaving the land, John Van Matre moved on the land as plaintiff Reiter's tenant. He testified that he commenced running cattle across the .8 acre as soon as Wesley had left. There was nothing to put defendants on notice that John Van Matre was making any greater claim to the land in question than had his brother Wesley, who, as noted above, testified he used the .8 acre with defendant's consent. In fact, John Van Matre stated that he made use of the land under the same circumstances that his brother Wesley had. John Van Matre ceased to make use of the Humble tract in early January, 1953. Thereafter, for approximately six weeks, no person used or occupied said land. On February 14, 1953, plaintiff Reiter's husband made a verbal lease of the Humble tract to R. M. Hughes, without any reference as to boundaries. Mr. Hughes did not maintain the fences around the western part of Block 223. He testified that he made no use of the .8 acre in dispute until 1956, at which time the canal area was leveled off. He did begin raising crops on the leveled canal strip in this year, and continued to do so down to 1958, when this suit was filed. However, even during the time of this use, Hughes did not claim to be holding the .8 acre for plaintiff Reiter as the exclusive owner thereof. He stated that he was asserting whatever interest plaintiff Reiter might have in the canal strip (the .8 acre) as one member of the public, as a property owner in the Irrigation District, like anybody else along the canal. It is clear from all of the foregoing that plaintiffs' attempt to establish ten-year title by limitation is not sufficient to meet the strict requirements of the statutes. The judgments of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals should be affirmed. GRIFFIN, J., joins in this dissent.