Court Opinion

ID: 9830217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:59:08.92488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:16.148256
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the original opinion, referring to appellants’ complaint at the omission from special issue No. 1 of the recitations “cultivating, using, or enjoying the same,” and “claiming under a deed or deeds duly recorded,” this was said:
“The undisputed evidence showed the presence of both these incidents, hence there was no issue about them left for the jury, and no error in omitting to charge upon them.”
On reconsideration, this statement is found to be somewhat inaccurate and is corrected accordingly. The undisputed evidence did show the claim under the duly recorded deed, but there was some testimony tending to raise an issue as to the cultivation, use, and fencing testified to by the appellees’ witnesses; it went no further than that, how ever, and there was ample contra evidence to support the finding:
“That Mrs. Dwyer had, through a tenant, occupied, used and enjoyed the land under a fence for at least 6 years, paying taxes thereon consecutively all the while.”
Appellants have no assignment or proposition to that effect, and are not entitled to raise in this court the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence Jo support the finding of 5 years’ limitation; nor could it be sustained, if they were.
In view of this state of the proof, the net effect of their contention here is that a reversal must be ordered because the words, “cultivating, using, or enjoying the same” were not a part of issue No. 1.
We do. not think so. The jury were not misled; elsewhere in the charge peacable and *1023adverse possession was properly defined; and they were also told:
“The possession, use, and occupancy referred to in this charge is such possession, use, and occupancy as the land would be capable or reasonably adapted to under all the circumstances as you may find they existed at any time material to the inquiry.”
In addition, as before indicated, there was, to say the least of it, sufficient positive testimony to support the finding that all the incidents of the 5 years’ statute, inclusive of this one relating to the cultivation, use, or enjoyment of the property for the requisite time, had been complied with.
The motion for rehearing has been carefully considered, but, under the conclusion that the former judgment should stand, it will be overruled.
Overruled.