Court Opinion

ID: 9829996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:48:16.051325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:10.725209
License: Public Domain

*699On Motion of Plaintiff in Error for a Rehearing.
Plaintiff in'error insists the testimony did not warrant a finding that defendants in error had and held continuous possession of any of the land in controversy for a sufficient length of time after the partition deed of 1888 was executed, and before J. A. Herring, as Mrs. Kelly’s tenant, fenced part of it, to perfect title in them by force of the 10-year statute of limitations. In support of the contention, attention is called to the fact that while said deed was dated “September -, 1888,” its execution was not acknowledged ■by some of the parties to it until February 26, 1889, whereas, as stated in the opinion disposing of the appeal, there was testimony that Herring, as Mrs. Kelly’s tenant, fenced .a part of the land in 1898 or 1899. Considering the testimony referred to alone, there would be reason for the contention, but, looking to the statement of facts again, we find that Herring himself testified that he leased the land from Mrs. Kelly and fenced it in “the early part of 1900.” As the time intervening ’between February, 1889, and the early part of 1900 was more than 10 years, we cannot say there was no support for the trial court’s finding. There was testimony that defendants in error, claiming to own all the land in controversy, were in possession of a part thereof from 1871, and that their possession was continuous, unless it should be held to have been broken by the fact that fences inclosing same were washed away when the land was overflowed by water in 1890 and were not rebuilt at once. It is held, according to Simkins on Title by Limitation in Texas, that “not keeping up a fence is not necessarily an interruption of adverse pos- . session,” and the statement is warranted by the authorities cited by the author of the work..
The motion is overruled.