Court Opinion

ID: 9831217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:55:41.379947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.678009
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for rehearing appellants insist that the case of Read v. Allen, 63 Tex. 154, upon the identical proposition in support of which it is cited in this ease, “has been overruled by the Supreme Court continually and by the various Oourts of Civil Appeals.” It would have tended to lighten the labors of this court if even one of the overruling decisions referred to had been cited. In view of the statement in the motion we have been led to a further examination of the authorities in this state on this question, and the examination has failed to reveal a case even doubting the authority of Read v. Allen, with the exception of our own opinion in Haynes v. T. & N. O. R. R. Co., 51 Tex. Civ. App. 49, 111 S. W. 427, and the individual opinion of Judge Key in Puryear v. Friery, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 316, 40 S. W. 449. In Haynes v. Railroad Co., supra, the writer of this opinion, speaking for the court, said with regard to Read v. Allen: “The late ease of Bowles v. Brice, 66 Tex. 730 [2 S. W. 729], while not in terms overruling the former opinion in the case referred to, seems to us to hold directly to the contrary,” etc. A further examination of the authorities has led us to reconsider this expression as erroneous. In fact, a more careful consideration of the opinion of Bowles v. Brice would have prevented this error. Judge Gaines, speaking for the court in the latter case, uses this language: “The question is, Must the possession in this case be restricted to the portion of the premises actually occupied by *280the tenants? It is held in Read v. Allen, 63 Tex. 154, and in Texas Land Co. v. Williams, 51 Tex. 51, that when a party claiming land leases by written contracts specific parts of it, describing them by metes and bounds, his possession through his lessees extends only to the parcels so defined. This is in accordance with the principle laid down in Cunningham v. Prandtzen, 26 Tex. 34, that where one in possession of a tract of land sells the portion actually occupied by him, his constructive possession, which before existed as to the remainder, immediately determines. But we consider that we have a different case before us. Shall a party, who lets to tenants for the purpose of cultivation the improved part of a tract of land, be deemed to have lost his constructive possession of the portion which is unimproved? We think not. 1-Ie applies the property to the only use of which it is susceptible, and should be deemed as exercising ownership over the whole tract as fully as if he were in possession of the improved portion, cultivating it himself. It is true that the witnesses state that the tenants in this case had no right or authority over the land not in cultivation.”
The court evidently did not see any inconsistency between the doctrine announced in this case and that held in the two eases cited. If there had been any intention of overruling the two cases, this is the place where we would have naturally looked for it. In Read v. Allen and Land Co. v. Williams, the law is thus stated: “When a landlord places a tenant on a tract of land claimed by him, and designated by metes and bounds the subdivision of the tract as the portion which the tenant is to occupy, the possession of the tenant, on a question of limitation, can inure to the landlord’s benefit only to the extent of the designated metes and bounds set forth in’ the lease.”
The Haynes Case, by its facts, came exactly within the doctrine of Bowles v. Brice, as was held by this court. We were simply in error when it was intimated that there was any conflict between Read v. Allen and Bowles v. Brice. As was said by the court in the latter case, the two cases occupy different ground. We have again examined each of the cases cited by us in support of Bowles v. Brice in the Haynes Case, and find that the facts in each case brought it within the rules in Bowles v. Brice and clearly distinguish it from Read v. Allen and Land Co. v. Williams. With reference to the present authority of Read v. Allen, the decisions in this state show the following: In Craig v. Cartwright, 65 Tex. 424, it was cited with approval. This was, however, before the decision in Bowles v. Brice. Since that decision, however, in Parker v. Cockrell, 31 S. W. 222, the court distinguishes the two cases, and certainly there is no hint of discrediting Read v. Allen. On the contrary, we take it as an express recognition of the authority of that case. In Hall v. Clountz, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 348, 63 S. W. 944, Land Co. v. Williams and Read v. Allen are cited and followed. In Puryear v. Friery, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 316, 40 S. W. 449, it was held that the facts of the case brought it under the rule of Bowles v. Brice, the court expressly recognizing the distinction between that case and Read v. Allen, and not even a suspicion is cast upon the authority of Read v. Allen, except that Justice Key, who wrote the opinion, states as his individual opinion that Cunningham v. Frandtzen, 26 Tex. 34, cited in Land Co. v. Williams and Read v. Allen, does not support the doctrine announced in these cases. In Collier v. Couts, 45 S. W. 487, the facts were the same as in Bowles v. Brice, which is cited in support of the opinion. In Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 114 S. W. 668, Read v. Allen is cited and followed. Writ of error was granted, but the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court (103 Tex. 105, 122 S. W. 533, 124 S. W. 85); and while neither Read v. Allen nor Land Co. v. Williams is cited, the opinion clearly approves the rule announced by the Court of Civil Appeals. In Pharis v. Jones, 122 Mo. 125, 26 S. W. 1032, the Supreme Court of Missouri cites and approves Read v. Allen. If there is a decision either of the Supreme Court or any of the Courts of Civil Appeals that has overruled or doubted the authority, in a proper case, of Read v. Allen or Land Co. v. Williams, except what is (erroneously) said by this court in Haynes v. Railroad Co., and by Judge Key, as his individual opinion, in Puryear v. Friery, we have been unable to find it.
Now, in the present case there can be no doubt that the written lease or acknowledgment of tenancy by F. W. Burrell to Adams referred to the Cole 160-acre survey. As it stands, the written lease was insufficient for want of description or identification of the land embraced in the lease. Without parol evidence showing to what land it referred, it was worthless. This parol evidence identified the survey referred to as the Cole 160-acre survey. Certainly the written lease by its terms, as explained by parol, covered no part of the Pratt, except in so far as the Cole survey covered the part of the Pratt. That ’ the boundaries of the Cole were not capable of exact identification, if such be the fact, does not affect the question. It was shown sufficiently that it covered only a small part of the Pratt in any event, and none of that part here in controversy. We must adhere to our opinion that the case is ruled by Read v. Allen and Land Co. v. Williams. None of the grounds of the motion for rehearing are tenable, and the motion is overruled.