Court Opinion

ID: 9828665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:36:31.994702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.651013
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing herein appellees earnestly insist that we are in error in applying the 25-year statute of limitation, as prescribed in article 5519, instead of applying said article as amended by the Acts of the Fortieth legislature, which became effective 90 days from and after March 16, 1927 (Gen. & Sp. Acts 1927, c, 250). This suit was filed January 15,1926, and was tried January 28, 1928. It will thus be seen the amendment became effective June 16, 1927, more than a year after the suit was filed, but it was in effect at the time the case was tried, January 28, 1928. The running of limitation .ceased on the filing of the suit, and the rights of the parties became fixed, so far as affected by the 25-year statute of limitation, as said statute then existed. So far as the 25-year statute is concerned, appellants’ vested right in the land, under the law in force at that time, had not been lost. They were at that time the owners of the land and were suing for possession and to establish their title; and we think no action the Legislature could thereafter take could destroy their right of property which became fixed under existing law. We know of no case, and appellees cite none, where it has been held that a property right not barred at the time suit was filed was destroyed by an act of the Legislature subsequent to the filing of the suit. Article 1, § 16, Constitution of Texas; Mellinger v. City of Houston, 68 Tex. 57, 3 S. W. 249; McCutcheon v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 194 S. W. 831; Slover v. Union Bank, 115 Tenn. 347, 89 S. W. 399, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 528.
Appellees’ motion is overruled.