Court Opinion

ID: 9827859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:53:45.682796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:38.061815
License: Public Domain

On Motion, for Rehearing.
[5] Counsel for appellants insist in their motion for a rehearing that some of the material facts regarding the defense under the five-year statute of limitation have been incorrectly stated in the original opinion. We have again examined the evidence, and find that it shows that the possession of the Spikes-Nash Company began in 1909. Suit was filed on the 21St of November, 1914, less than five years from the beginning of possession under the constable’s deed. But even if we were in error regarding the length of time during which th'e appellant held possession, their defense under the fiveryear. statute would be incomplete because the record shows they only paid taxes for the years 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912.
There are some other immaterial clerical errors appearing in the original opinion, which will be corrected.