Court Opinion

ID: 9827065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:06:34.021452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:22.032007
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the original opinion in this case we made a brief statement of the facts pertinent to the issues of limitation, some of which we quoted indirectly, and some of which we stated as facts, which we did not directly quote.
Counsel for appellant has filed motipn requesting additional findings of fact, which •motion we have granted, and we copy in full the additional facts suggested by counsel for appellant, as follows:
“Mrs. Herring testified: T have heard them speak about Mr. Simmons being there. I do not know whether my father put Mr. Simmons there or not, but I have heard him speak about his being there. I probably have heard him speak about making a trade with Mr. Simmons for the improvements, but I don’t remember any particulars about it at all.’
“E. Biscamp testified: ‘My father’s name was Fred Biscamp. He is dead. He died in December, 1873. I remember about my father and Jones trading for some oxen. We owned the oxen when my father died, and I know how long we kept them, because we bought a little place on Clear creek, and we boys cultivated it in 1872 and used the oxen we had got from Jones. Mr. Jones got those oxen from old man Bill Simmons. Jones traded him that old place over there, the improvements, so they said. ' I don’t know that they did that; that w.as the understanding that he let him have them in payment to buy the place. I think Bill Simmons moved on the place about the time Mr. Jones got the oxen, and ho stayed there a little while and left I think Simmons went on the place first, and then Mrs. Tade. I don’t know how long it was after Simmons left before Mrs. Tade went there.’
“D. J. Dee testified: ‘It don’t really appear to me tbat Simmons lived there more than a month or two; a very short time, any way.’
“H. C. Jones testified: ‘My father is mistaken when he says I lived on the place with my family continuously for a period of twelve years from the time I originally moved on it; then Mrs. Tade, an aunt of mine moved on the place and occupied the same as my tenant continuously for a period of about five years. It is not a fact that during the time Simmons lived on the N. H. Cochran league .and occupied the improvements he bought from me, .and that I was living elsewhere than on the IST. H. Cochran league. It is not a fact that the improvements which I sold to the said Simmons were on the land in controversy in the suit filed against me in the 'federal court at Houston, in which judgment was rendered against me for the land in controversy.’ ”
We have quoted in hajc verba the testimony of these witnesses, as is set out in appellant’s motion for additional findings of fact, out of deference to them. However, we think the brief statement of the facts made by us in the original opinion fairly presents every additional fact requested by the appellant.
In our original opinion we used the following language:
“A number of witnesses not related to the parties testified positively of Jones’ occupation and tilling of the land up to 1882.”
In appellant’s motion for rehearing this statement is challenged by appellant’s counsel as to tbe words “not related to the parties.” Appellant asks that this part of the statement be corrected, because there was only one witness who so testified who was not related to some of the parties. There were a number of witnesses of different names who testified, and which is likely responsible for tbe clause “not related to the parties.” We accept appellant’s statement as true, without looking over the record, as to relationship, and now correct that paragraph in the original opinion, and make it read,
“A number of witnesses testified positively of Jones’ occupation and tilling of the land up to and including 1SS2.”
Appellant’s motion for rehearing presents nothing but what we have heretofore considered and passed upon, and we see no reason for change of our original opinion in this cause, and the motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.