Court Opinion

ID: 9828659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:36:06.210183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.713693
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees, in their motion for rehearing, urge that if the judgment of this court reversing and remanding this cause is permitted to stand, that we should tell the trial court the issues to be submitted.
In view of the fact that the cause will have to be retried, and because we cannot foretell what testimony will be adduced, we do not deem it advisable to formulate the issues to be submitted to the jury by the trial court. We think the opinion of our Supreme Court in Cubley v. Barbee, 123 Tex. 411, 73 S.W.2d 72, and the opin*657ion in Jones v. Guy, 135 Tex. 398, 143 S.W.2d 906, 142 A.L.R. 77, are sufficient to guide the trial judge in the preparation of the issues.
Appellees contend that notwithstanding the grounds upon which this cause was reversed, that they are entitled, to have the judgment affirmed because they specially plead limitation and that the evidence conclusively shows that appellee Josephine Slater had title to the land in question by virtue of the five year statute of limitation. Art. 5509, R.C.S. We cannot agree with this contention. (1) Appellees tendered in evidence a deed to the land in question from Carrie Smith Lary to Josephine Slater, which deed, among other things, provided:
«* * * It is further hereby specially agreed and covenanted that the above described premises, together with all appurtenances hereto anywise belonging, shall remain in the quiet and peaceful possession of the said Carrie Smith Lary to have and enjoy the usufruct and all the rents and profits arising therefrom during the natural life of said Carrie Smith Lary.
“The above described property to pass immediately into the possession of . said Lilia Josephine Slater in fee simple title in accordance with the terms of this deed.
“Said Carrie Smith Lary during her natural life shall have the control and management of said above described property. * * * ” ' f
In addition thereto, appellee Josephine Slater testified in part as follows:
“Q. It appears that Mrs. Lary has executed two deeds to you. Prior to the execution of those deeds, did she discuss the matter with you ? A. Mrs. Lary wanted me to have some security, since I had helped her, and in case anything happened to me I would have some means of livelihood, because I had spent what money I had helping her.”
The burden rested upon appellee Jose-: phine Slater to establish her limitation title. We have again carefully reviewed the statement of facts and we think-it is obvious that appellee Slater has not carried this burden. In Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332, 114 S.W.2d 226, 230, 136 S.W .2d 207, point page 230, our Supreme Court, in quoting from the opinion in Parker v. Baines, 65 Tex. 605, saidi “ ‘It is necessary, to set the statute of limitations in motion, that the possession be actual, visible, notorious, distinct and hostile.’”' The rule in Texas is that in order for possession to be adverse it must be exclusive. See authorities collated in Old National Life Ins. Co. v. Jerusalem Lodge No. 67, Free & Accepted Masons, Tex.Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d 921, cases collated on page 928.
(2) Appellees made no request for a directed verdict; nor did they file any objection to the court’s charge for failure to submit limitation; nor did they re quest the submission of said issue; nor did they thereafter file a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. See Rules 268, 279 and 301 T.R.C.P. See also, Roberts v. Shell Pipe Line Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 106, pt. page 108. After the jury’s verdict was returned appellees did file a motion for judgment on the pleadings'and the evidence and the verdict of the jury, which motion was granted. Limitation is a special defense and must he specially plead and it was an independent ground of recovery that ap-pellees relied upon to defeat the cause of action asserted by appellants. In Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Pepper, 134 Tex. 360, 135 S.W.2d 79, point page 85, we find this statement of the general rule by the Supreme Court:
“ * * * if the party has failed to request for submission such issue, or issues, as will sustain his action or defense, he has not met the burden placed upon him by law, and no waiver can be imputed to the other party for such failure. For instance, in the case of Kirby Lumber Co. v. Conn, 114 Tex. 104, 263 S.W. 902, it was held that the issue of limitation not having been submitted or requested, the trial court did not have the power, under, the statute, to make such findings in order to sustain the judgment of the -trial court.” •
*658See also: Ferguson v. Parker, Tex.Civ.App., 176 S.W.2d 768, point 5.
It follows that appellees’ motion for rehearing must be overruled, and it is so ordered.