Court Opinion

ID: 9832072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:35:49.591413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:41.729296
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants,' in their motion for rehearing, cite us to the case of McKinney v. Freestone County, 291 S. W. 529, decided by the Commission of Appeals on February 23, 1927, and not yet [officially] published. Based upon the authority of that case, it is urged that we erred in our original opinion in holding that article 5521 of the Revised Statutes has no application to the facts in this case.
We have carefully considered the motion and the authority cited, but have concluded that our opinion is not in conflict therewith. In this ease appellants claim no rights whatever by virtue of any executory contract of sale, but the sole issue involved in the trial of this case was the question of limitation. Appellants claimed as if they were naked trespassers. Appellees claimed that appellants were not naked trespassers, but went into possession in virtue of an executory contract by which no character of title was vested in them. This was therefore not a suit by appellee to recover any real estate by virtue of a superior title retained in any deed of conveyance or in any vendor's lien note or for the foreclosure of any lien given to secure such note, and the provisions of old article 5694, Rev. St. 1911, would have no application. Article 5521 of the Revision of 1925 was carved out of old article 5694. This recodification was made after this suit *647was filed and after it Lad been tried one time. To bold that tbe effect of article 5521 is to bar appellee from proving tbe facts with reference to tbe character of appellant’s possession would be to give tbe statute retroactive effect and take appellee’s property without due process of law.
We therefore conclude that tbe statute has no application to tbe facts of this case, and appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.