Court Opinion

ID: 9832011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:32:32.10385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:41.091919
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant now contends that the fourth point contained in his original brief raises the contention that he was entitled to judgment for the 44.9 acres of land in Survey 884 under the doctrine.of prior possession. The wording of the point hardly suggests the contention. It does however refer to an ■ involved and multifarious ground for new trial set forth in the transcript, parts of which, when taken together with parts of, the argument appearing in the brief under appellant’s first, second, third and fourth points (grouped), could possibly be construed as presenting the contention. We can not say, however, that this method of raising a contention is proper or even sufficient. Wilson v. West, Tex;.Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 1026. We might,,, however, point out that the doctrine which permits an inference of title or ownership to be drawn from possession is a rule of evidence and not of property. No request was made for the submission of issues to the jury under such theory. As the doctrine of prior possession is an independent ground of recovery, it must therefore be considered waived unless established as a matter of law. Rodriguez v. Higginbot-ham-Bailey-Logan Co., Tex.Civ.App., 144 SW.2d.993; Id., Tex.Sup., 160 S.W.2d 234.
We can not say as a matter of law that appellant’s possession was such as necessarily raises a presumption of title. Canales v. Clopton,. Tex.Civ.App., 145 S. W.2d 933.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.