Court Opinion

ID: 9833017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:22:30.562362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:57.728083
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The motion for rehearing attacks our holding that the particular patent in this instance was sufficient as a deed to support the five years’ statute of limitation. The cases cited as supporting appellants’ propositions do not we think sustain them. Without discussing them seriatim, it may be said that in each instance a careful examination of the authorities cited will show that they do not affect this case. For instance, in Gilbert v. Harris, 109 S. W. 392, it was held that a patent not title or color of title will not support the statute of limitation. In the Shepard-Avery Case, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 479, 69 S. W. 82, the portion of the opinion relied on was withdrawn expressly. Inasmuch as we held that this particular patent would support the three years’ statute of limitation, it amounted to a holding that it was color of title. Therefore, our holding as to the five years’ statute amounts to a holding that a patent which is color of title will support the five years’ statute. It is not necessary in this instance to extend our decision further than this, as we have really no concern with abstract questions.
The motion is overruled.