Court Opinion

ID: 9833472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:44:51.694447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.297676
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellants com plain that the court has not sufficiently found the facts in this' case, and he desires a more full finding for the purpose of applying for writ of error, in case this motion is overruled..
The trial court found, and was supported by the evidence, that Charles Sherwood and Walter Sherwood each had exclusive possession, use, and enjoyment of the property described in their respective deeds for some time prior to the death of their mother, Mary A. Sherwood, on August 21, 1918, and that the reasonable rental value of the property conveyed to Charles Sherwood has been $30 per month from the date of the death of Mary A. Sherwood to the date of trial, amounting in the aggregate to $540; that the property conveyed to Walter Sherwood and held by him had a reasonable rental value of $50 per month from the date of the death of Mary A. Sherwood to the date of the trial, amounting in the aggregate to $900.
The court also found that Mary A. Sherwood, at the time of the execution of the deeds, on the 12th day of April, 1913, and down to the date of her death, which occurred on the 21st day of August, 1918, and ,at the ' making, execution, and delivery of said deeds, and each of them, was continuously, down to the date of her said death, of unsound mind, and did not have sufficient mental capacity to comprehend and understand the nature and extent of her property rights, and was incapable of forming a . rational judgment as to the disposition she should make of said property, of her own accord.
The deeds were duly filed for record in Bexar county on the 14th day of April, 1913.
These are the material facts as we understand it, that appellants desire us to find, which we accordingly do.
At any rate, the findings of the court on all the subjects passed upon and considered in our opinion are thoroughly supported by the evidence.
Appellants’ theory is. that there can he no recovery for rent, because there is no testimony tending to show “the collection of any rent from the property in controversy, and especially the sums and amounts decreed as recovery against appellants, and this is a little short of a disregard of the law and the facts of the case made by the trial court.”
 This is a very erroneous conception of the law. Where a party acquires deeds to land and takes possession thereof, which requires a suit in trespass to try title to recover, the plaintiff recovering is entitled to rentals and improvements. Evetts v. Tendick, 44 Tex. 572; Evitts v. Roth, 61 Tex. 86; Ammons v. Dwyer, 78 Tex. 642, 15 S. W. 1049. Of course, defendants are not chargeable with rent, except from the date, of their occupancy. Armstrong v. Oppenheimer, 84 Tex. 368, 19 S. W. 520.
In answer to the contention that the court was without jurisdiction to decree a partition of said property, on the alleged ground that no cause of action was set up, appellants have overlooked the plaintiff’s petition, which is a very clear statement of appellees’ cause of action, stating the facts necessary to support the relief, and prays for the cancellation of the deeds, the restitution of the possession of said property to the estate of the said Mary Ann Sherwood or to the heirs at law of her body as may appear, and for costs, and for the reasonable rental of said property, and all legal and equitable relief, both general and special, to which they may be entitled in the premises. Under this prayer for relief, all the parties being before the court, and their heirship and interests being established, the court in its general equitable powers had -the right to administer all of the necessary and proper relief. It would be unnecessary to merely decree a recovery between the same parties and then go through another suit for its partition and distribution.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.