Court Opinion

ID: 9830130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:54:26.087763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:13.637296
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
As explained in the opinion hereinbefore rendered in this ease, in cause No. 5,809, the southwest corner of appellees’ land was fixed by judgment of the court at the intersection of his fence with that of C. W. Davis, and his land was to be run from that point according to field notes in his deed. Appellees in their motion for rehearing insist that we were in error in saying that the question of limitation was res adjudicata in this first suit, for the reason that appellees did not then have 10 years possession, but did have more than 10 years possession when this suit was tried. What we held was that in cause No. 5,809 appellees recovered the land described in said judgment, and no other, and that, in order for them to hold by limitation in this suit, they must have had 10 years possession *1163since said Judgment was rendered. Not having such possession, said plea .cannot avail them in this suit.
App ellees insist that the arbitration cannot avail appellant, for the reason that the agreement Was to run out both the northern and eastern boundary, and they say that appellant has refused to abide by the northern boundary, which amounts to a repudiation of such arbitration. There is nothing in the record to show that appellant has repudiated the line run upon the north. He stated in his evidence that as thus run the appellees got a portion of his land, but it does not appear from the pleadings or the evidence that he bad refused to abide by such line.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.