Court Opinion

ID: 9827029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:04:58.241534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:21.510906
License: Public Domain

*897On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellants, on motion for rehearing, challenge the findings in the original opinion, wherein it stated that “In 1906, N. S. Maxfield, the owner and holder of a large tract of land, and on which he lived, conveyed to his son, J. S. Maxfield, the smaller lot in question, adjacent to the large tract”; and, further, “In 1908, J. S. Maxfield, while living as a member of his father’s family on the larger tract of land, erected a small building on the lot”; and still further, “In 1911, J. S. Maxfield again made his home with his father, cultivated a crop on his father’s farm.”
In deference to the vigorous'.attack, in motion and oral argument, an extended examination of the voluminous statement of facts has again been made, and we think the facts revealed therein justify the conclusions reflected in the opinion:
J. S. Maxfield testified that he owned 76.8 acres of land near and adjacent to the village of Van, Tex.; that he sold the land to his father, N. S. Maxfield, and, in 1906, his father reconveyed to him a lot (the lot in question) out of the' tract, and, in the fall of 1906, the balance of the tract was sold to A. G. Maxfield. He was then questioned and answered, as follows:
“Q. This lot that is in controversy here is a part of your father’s homestead? A. No, sir * * *.
“Q. Iiow far was his residence from the tract of land that this block was a part of ? A. Three or four hundred yards.
“Q. Did he own all the land from there to his house? A. No, sir.
“Q. Is there a break in it up there somewhere?" A. Yes, sir.”
The record reveals that, in January, 1909, A. G. Maxfield reconveyed the land he purchased to N. S. Maxfield. M. R. Bolin testified, questioned, and answered, as follows:
“Q. Where was Newt (N. S.) Maxfield living? A. "He lived at Van.
“Q. So then, from 1904 and 1905, along in there sometime, or down to 1909 or 1910, you know they both lived there close around ?
“A. I don’t think Jacie (J. S. Maxfield) was there all the time, * * * and I think he stayed with his father in and out. I didn’t make any minutes of these things.
“Q. Where did J. S. Maxfield live when he was in Van? * * * Did he have a house or residence when he was operating the barber shop? A. I think he was living with his father. * * *
“Q. You know where Mr. J. S. Max-field was at the time you bought those lots from Mr. N. S. Maxfield (November 11th, 1911)? A. I do not.
"Q. Was he at Van at that time? A. I think he was there. That is my recollection; that he made a little crop upon the old Maxfield place.
“Q. Where was he living at that time? A. His home was with his father, I think.
“Q. N. S. Maxfield, the man you purchased the lot from? A. Yes,'sir, I think -it was his home.
“Q. How far did he live from that lot? A. Right across the gin lot, I suppose about an acre in the gin lot.
“Q. Right up there where young Charlie Cannon’s place was? A. About 200 yards over there.”
E. B. (Bunnie) Tunnell testified:
“Q. Do you know whether or not during the time you have known the lot (lot in question) a building, an organ house, or something like that was located on the lot? A. Well, no; at that time, it wasn’t a lot; there was a little organ house built there, however. It wasn’t at that time known as a lot. Mr. N. S. Maxfield owned all of that land there at that time, and there was a lot—
“Q. Go ahead. A. Well, and E. V. Tunnell later bought it. Then it was known as lots after he bought it; he bought seven acres, I believe it was.”
The testimony of the witness above quoted is uncontradicted, and we fail to see any serious conflict with the findings reflected in the original opinion, of which the appellants complain; and, in passing, we reaffirm that, at the time M. R. Bolin purchased the property, the facts show and appearances of the lot point consistently to N. S. Maxfield as the actual possessor of the lot, and that the purchaser, M. R. Bolin, was justified in making inquiry of him, instead of seeking information of J. S. Maxfield as to the ownership thereof.
Furthermore, it is inconceivable that a son living with his father in a country village, as Van was at that time, did not know that his father, N. S. Maxfield, an honorable and upright citizen, was then claiming the lot in question, and that he sold the lot to one of his neighbors, M. R. *898Bolin, and, further, the son, for practically twenty years thereafter, living in that community, was ignorant of those facts, and, after oil had been discovered on and near the lot, in 1930, for the first time discovered that the lot had been sold by his father; that his neighbor had purchased it and'sold it to another neighbor, E. V. Tunnell, who has been holding the property adversely to the son’s rights therein under an unrecorded deed.
We see no reason to change the findings and conclusions of the original opinion; therefore, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Motion overruled.