Court Opinion

ID: 9829087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:58:32.472396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.100271
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee vigorously questions the conclusion of this court that the evidence raised an issue of fact as to appellants’ possession during the crop year of September, 1929, to September, 1930. We adhere to that conclusion, however.
The evidence is that, when the parol sale was made in August, 1929, appellant was too engrossed in his affairs in Arkansas to permit his assumption of immediate direction of the actual farming operations on the premises in Hidalgo county, and for that reason he turned those operations for that year over to Cook and Phillips for “what they could make out of it,” while at the same time directing Phillips to proceed forthwith in appellant’s behalf towards planting the land to fruit trees and -making other improvements thereon. By these means appellant assumed full dominion over the premises, for Cook’s and Phillip’s farming operations for that year were with appellant’s permission and under his direction, and so far as those operations went, amounted to possession by appellant. And it seems to be conceded, as it appears conclusively from the record, that the arrangement with Cook and Phillips ended, with the crop year, on September 1, 1930, whereas the attachment lien here asserted by appellee was not created until November 5,1930.
It is perfectly obvious from the record, assuming the foregoing facts of possession to be true, that the parol sale here asserted was *1047accompanied by full payment of consideration, possession, substantial improvements, and payment of taxes. Tbe statute of frauds exacts nothing more.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing isl overruled.