Court Opinion

ID: 9636091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:16:29.040116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:42.364113
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellees, J. A. Killough et al., filed an able and insistent motion for rehearing in which they urge, in effect, the proposition that no inference of a fact issue on adverse possession by appellants Hinds against them was raised in the record.
They assert the pipe lines across the land show there was not the necessary exclusiveness in Hinds’ possession. The Beaumont court has held that a canal and a pipe line across land not interfering with the use of such land does not affect the exclusiveness of an adverse claimant. Peveto v. Herring, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S.W.2d 921. There is not even an inference in this record that the pipe lines interfered with claimants’ use and possession.
They also assert that the road house called the Wagonwheel placed on the land showed a joint user of the adverse claimant with the record owner that prevented the required exclusiveness. We believe Clem Hinds’ deposition raises an inference, if it does not actually show conclusively, that Hinds claimed the Wagonwheel was placed on the land with his consent and used in subordination to his claim.
Killough et al. also continue to urge that the extent of Hinds’ claim is indefinite and cannot be located upon the ground. We *107respectfully call to their attention that the record shows the Hinds contended they were claiming adversely the N.W.14 of the S.W.'i4 of Section 14, Block Y. M. & C, Hutchinson County, Texas. We believe such a description was sufficient to locate their claim upon the ground. We are still of the opinion that a final disposition of Hinds’ adverse claim against Killough et al. in this summary proceedings was error.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.