Court Opinion

ID: 9828615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:33:23.866569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.056622
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Counsel for appellants, in his motion for rehearing, calls our attention to several errors in our opinion rendered in this cause.
[12,13] In stating the answer of appellants, we omitted to say that “not guilty” was alleged. This omission led us to make two other erroneous statements : In our consideration of the sixth assignment, we stated that appellants had not pleaded the defense that appellee had waived his legal right to recover his land. This was error, for we are persuaded that this issue was raised by the statutory plea of “not guilty.” However, as we held in the opinion, the court resolved this issue of fact in favor of appellee,' and we must leave it undisturbed under the evidence in this case.
[14] Again, in our disdussion of the seventh assignment, we stated that laches was not pleaded by appellants. This was error, for the issue of laches was raised by the plea of “not guilty.” However, as admitted by counsel for appellants, the defense of laches or stale demand is applicable only to suits in equity. In the present case, appellee’s suit in trespass to try title was founded upon a legal title, and not on equitable title. The judgment will be construed as adjudicating that legal right in favor of appellee. Laches, even though pleaded, was no defense to this legal right adjudicated in favor of appellee. Prior to the statutes of 1913, there was no *203limitation barring the right to assert such a superior title as is herein involved.
[15] Our opinion does not take from appellants the presumption of payment of the note created by the long lapse of time. This presumption is only prima facie evidence of payment, and can be rebutted by evidence. The presumption of payment created by long lapse of time, together with other evidence relating to the issue of payment, is to be considered by the jury in determining the issue.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.