Court Opinion

ID: 9828591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:31:55.009926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:50.552632
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The opinion of the court is assailed on the ground that there was sufficient testimony to show that Makey and wife had not agreed to build a fence about the property for Dr. Bruce and hold the property for him. Makey swore positively in his ex parte deposition that he did not know that Bruce was claim-” ing the property, and that he had been claiming the land 16 or 17 years before he ever saw Bruce. He said his occupancy of the land was continuous from 1882 up to the time he first saw Bruce. Jeannette Makey swore that Bruce stated that he did not know where the land was that he claimed; that' she and her husband had lived on the place using and claiming it ever since they first moved on it. Makey and wife swore that the first time they saw Bruce was about 5 or 6 years before the trial which occurred in March, 1912, that is, in 1906. At that time Makey and wife had been claiming the land for 24 years. Bruce obtained a deed to the land in 1890, 8 years after Makey and wife went into possession of it. Bruce was uncertain about when he first talked to Makey; but, as he sent him the money for building the fence in 1899, it must have been about that time that he first went to the land. At that time Makey had been in possession of the land for 17 years, and had perfected a title by 10 years’ limitation. Bred Kilpper swore that he moved into the neighborhood of the lot in 1882 or 1883, and Makey had it fenced at that time, and was cultivating it; that the place was kept continuously under fence. Robert E. O. Wilson swore that the Makeys were on the place in 1883, and that the land in controversy was fenced, and it remained fenced up to the time witness last saw it, in 1895 or 1896.
It is clear that the acceptance of the $5 by Makey from Bruce as a payment for repairing a fence took place after the title had been perfected, and while admissible to show that the possession was. not adverse, still it was purely a question of fact for a jury as to whether taking the money evidenced that there was no adverse possession. As said by this court, in Cuellar v. Dewitt, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 568, 24 S. W. 671: “The weight and effect to be given such acts and declarations, the condition of the parties, the circumstances surrounding the act or declaration, and the motive back of or responsible for either, must be passed upon and viewed in the light of the facts of each case.” This was simply and purely a jury case, and, the jury having decided it in favor of appellees, and there being evidence to sustain their finding, no matter what this court may think of the relative standing and reputation of the witnesses for truth and veracity, the verdict cannot be disturbed.
Appellants assert that, when this case was before this court on a former appeal (128 S. W. 633), it was held that the evidence *304was sufficient to support tlie verdict. Of course, tfiis court field no sucfi tiling, as it would fiave been quite improper so to do in view of a reversal. But, if it fiad so field, it would still be justified in holding that the evidence on the last trial sustained the finding that appellees fiave a title by limitations, although it may not fiave been technically correct to say that the uncontradicted testimony established that fact, and that expression will be withdrawn. The uncon-tradicted evidence, however, did show that the land was fenced in 1882 or 1883.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.