Court Opinion

ID: 9830379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:09:41.454756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:20.608871
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee in his motion for rehearing insists that the judgment of the trial court is sustainable on the theory of the parol sale of the land in controversy from York to Richey; that Richey having paid the consideration agreed upon, taken exclusive possession of the land with York’s consent and made permanent and valuable improvements upon same, the judgment in his behalf of the trial court was proper. Both York and Richey testified that the full purchase price for the land had been *494paid by Richey and that Richey went into possession of the land and has continued in possession since. The evidence also shows that Richey straightened out a bend in the creek upon a portion of the land in controversy, filled it in with logs and brush so that he was later able to cultivate over it; that he cleared a portion of the land and after he ceased cultivating it put it into pasture and meadow. There is nothing in the record to show the value, if any, of such improvements. This evidence, in our opinion, is not sufficient to support the issue of permanent valuable improvements so as to remove this case from the application of the statute of frauds. Hooks v. Bridgewater, 111 Tex. 122, 229 S.W. 1114, 15 A.L.R. 216, and authorities there cited.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.