Court Opinion

ID: 9834148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:20:14.833816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.062870
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] Appellee insists that the finding of the jury that he had title to the land by force of the statute of limitation^ of ten years was authorized, but he does not point out any testimony which warranted a finding that the possession and use of the land by the Hendersons became adverse as to Crawford, who owned it with them,' before January 1, 1898, nor does he point out any testimony which warranted a finding, if the Hendersons’ possession then became adverse, as stated, that it continued unbroken to a time later than March, 1907. Who, if any one, had possession of the land during the remainder of the year 1907, and during several years immediately following it, does not appear from testimony in the record. Appellee insists that the inferences from the testimony were that the possession of the land held by Henderson’s widow and children after his death continued until 1913, when they conveyed it *368to Ms vendor, and argues that if the possession of the Hendersons did not continue after March, 1907, appellants could easily have proven the fact. In so arguing appellee seems to have overlooked the fact that the burden was on him to prove, not only that the possession of the Hendersons was adverse to the Crawfords, within the meaning of the statute, but also that such possession continued unbroken for ten years, and that appellants were not called upon to prove the contrary. Dunn v. Taylor, 102 Tex. 80, 113 S. W. 265; Woods v. Hill, 90 Tex. 228, 38 S. W. 165.
The contention that the judgment should be affirmed on the theory that it appeared from the testimony that Henderson repaid to Crawford the part of the purchase money the latter paid on the land, and paid to the' parties entitled thereto the remainder of the purchase price, in the performance of an agreement between him and Crawford, whereby the latter undertook, to and did abandon his claim to an interest in .the land under the deed from the Whitemans, and further appeared from the testimony that Henderson, relying on Crawford’s undertaking, placed valuable improvements on the land, cannot be sustained. It is not necessary to determine whether the contention would be tenable if the facts on which it is predicated appeared to be conclusively established by the testimony. It is sufficient now to say they were not so established, and that there are no findings by the jury showing they existed. >
The motion will be overruled, except so far as it is to set aside the judgment entered here reversing the judgment of the court below in appellee’s favor against appellant Mary Fleming. The judgment of that court so far as it was against her should have been affirmed, and it was due to an oversight that it was not. The judgment of this court will be set aside in that respect, and the judgment of the court below so far as it is against said Mary Fleming will be affirmed. And the judgment of this court will be modified so as to adjudge one-fourth of the ampunt of the costs of the appeal against said Mary Fleming, and three-fourths thereof only against appellee.