Court Opinion

ID: 9828861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:48:21.455515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:53.879698
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
. One ground urged by appellant for recovery of the land sued for by him as trustee on appeal is that as it was shown by the undisputed evidence that appellee Smith did, on the 21st day of September, 1914, execute, and deliver to one E. E Arnim a written instrument to the effect that he was holding the land sued for as a tenant of Arnim, and since it was also shown that appellee’s wife had, after the delivery of such instrument, contracted in writing with F. E. Arnim and Will Powers for the purchase of a portion of said land, appellee Smith is estopped from claiming title by limitation, notwithstanding he had, before the execution of said instrument, perfected his title by the 10-year statute of limitation, in that after said instrument had been executed, he (appellant) had' purchased said land from Geneva Bank for himself and as trustee for Will Powers.
In passing upon such contention we stated in our original opinion that as appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, had not pleaded the facts constituting his supposed es-toppel, he could not recover upon such 'grounds. In other words, that appellant could not recover upon the theory of estop-pel because the facts upon which he relied were not pleaded.
Upon further consideration, upon motion for rehearing,, we have reached the conclusion that we were in error in the holding above mentioned. It was not necessary to specially plead the facts of estoppel to entitle appellant to recover. The customary allegations in case of trespass to try title are sufficient to authorize proof of any fact tending to establish the title of the plaintiff. Blumenthal v Nussbaum (Tex. Civ. App.) 195 S. W. 271; Edwards v. Barwise, 69 Tex, 84, 6 S. W. 677.
But as there is no evidence showing, or tending to show, that at the time appellant purchased the land from the Geneva Bank he or Will Powers had any knowledge of the instruments hereinbefore mentioned, or that they or either of them were induced to purchase from the bank by reason of said instruments, appellant was not entitled to recover title by estoppel
Having corrected the error in our original opinion as indicated, which was pointed out in appellant’s motion for rehearing, and there being no other error in said opinion, the motion in all other respects is overruled:
Overruled.