Court Opinion

ID: 9830773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:28:02.142676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.594551
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing.
Appellants have called our attention to the fact that on page 166 of the original opinion [82 S.W.(2d) 159] in referring to the case of Miller v. Foster, 76 Tex. Civ. 479, 13 S. W. 529, we used the expression: “That case is a complete answer to the propositions urged by all of the appellants, and we do not feel the necessity of lengthening this opinion by taking up each assignment of error and proposition and discussing them.” We find^that a typography ical error has been made and the opinion is amended so as to read as follows: “Thát case is a complete answer to the propositions urged by all of the appellees, intei--veners, and we do not feel the necessity of lengthening this opinion by taking up each assignment of error and proposition and discussing them.”
We have carefully considered the motions on the part of appellees for a rehearing and find nothing of merit in same. The said motions are hereby overruled.
The writer of these conclusions and of the original opinion further believes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered because James M. Owens openly and notoriously asserted title to and took adverse possession of the lands involved more than ten years before this suit was brought by appellees and interven-ers. It is not necessary to cite authorities which hold that a joint tenant, or tenant in common, may acquire title to property by and through open, notorious, and adverse possession as against all claimants, and that even an administrator or a trustee may so acquire the title to property as against a beneficiary. And the writer sees no difference between such situations and that of a cestui que trust acquiring title by adverse possession as against a settlor and the trustee. The majority of this honorable court, however, do not express any opinion on this theory of the case, and this writer stands alone in reaching such conclusions.
Motions for rehearing are all overruled.