Court Opinion

ID: 9831521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:09:21.896294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.467100
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[10] We have concluded that we were in error in the holding in the original opinion to the effect that this is a transitory cause of action, of which the courts of Texas will take jurisdiction. The pleading, the evidence, and the findings of the trial court conclusively show that plaintiff bottoms its cause of action upon its title to, or better right to possession of, the mining claim from which the ores in question were taken, and that Kidder and Burns were in peaceable and adverse possession of the claim under location made by them, after inquiry of plaintiff’s superintendent whether his company claimed the property, and after being informed that the assessment work required by law had not been done. And it is admitted by plaintiff that its agents were expressly prohibited from trespassing upon the claim by Kidder and Burns.
The jurisdictional question here' presented is not alone title to the claim, but is, were the persons charged with conversion of the ores in adverse peaceable possession of the claim or property at the time of the taking? If so, the action for its value will not lie in a foreign state or jurisdiction, because the title to the realty is directly in issue between the parties, and it is the policy of the law that such direct issue should be tried in the local court; in other words, where the property is situated. 34 Cyc. 1364; 24 A. & E. En. of L. 486; 28 A. & E. En. of L. 654; Wells on Replevin, § 82; Cobby on Replevin, §§ 274-5; Richbourg v. Rose, 53 Fla. 173, 44 South. 69, 125 Am. St. Rep. 1061, 12 Ann. Cas. 279; Powell v. Smith, 2 Watts (Pa.) 126; Harrison v. Hoff, 102 N. C. 126, 9 S. E. 638; Yoakum v. Davis, 162 Mo. App. 253, 144 S. W. 879; Wheeler v. Clark, 69 L. R. A. 732, note; Johnston v. Fish, 105 Cal. 420, 38 Pac. 979; 45 Am. St. Rep. 53; Anderson v. Hap *71ler, 34 Ill. 436, 85 Am. Dec. 318; Renick v. Boyd, 99 Pa. 555, 44 Am. Rep. 124; Brown v. Caldwell, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 114, 13 Am. Dec. 665; Mather v. Trinity Church, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 509, 8 Am. Dec. 663; Page v. Howler, 28 Cal. 605; Pennybecker v. McDougal, 46 Cal. 661; Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co., 55 N. J. Law, 350, 26 Atl. 920; Id. (Err. & App.) 28 Atl. 79; Cooper v. Watson, 73 Ala. 255; Leatherwood v. Sullivan, 81 Ala. 464, 1 South. 718; Adler v. Prestwood, 122 Ala. 374, 24 South. 999; Brothers v. Hurdle, 32 N. C. 490, 51 Am. Dec. 400; Rathbone v. Boyd, 30 Kan. 485, 2 Pac. 664; Caldwell v. Custard, 7 Kan. 303; Barnhart v. Ford, 37 Kan. 520, 15 Pac. 542; Lehman v. Kellerman, 65 Pa. 489. The rule announced in the opinion applies to naked trespassers only.
Having concluded that the courts of Texas will not take Jurisdiction of this action under the facts, it must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.