Court Opinion

ID: 9828030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:01:46.029251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:02.184268
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
. The appellee has filed a motion for rehearing in which the chief complaint is that we erred in rendering judgment for the appellant for that portion of the alley in controversy because the appellant did not testify that he had claimed any character of title to this land or possessed the same under any claim of ownership.
 It is our opinion that his open, hostile, exclusive and continuous appropriation of the land during the thirteen years preceding the filing of this suit carries with it a far more potent conclusion that his appropriation of the land was “com-pienced and continued under a claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of another” than would have been his direct testimony to such effect, especially when such conduct in appropriating the land is in itself unmistakable proof of his “claim of right” in the absence of some evidence indicating that he held the land in subordination to the title of the real owner.
In Boy et al. v. McDowell, Tex.Civ. App., 207 S.W. 937, 938, writ dismissed, it is said: “Possession of premises usually carries with it the presumption of a claim of title, and in that sense operates as notice to the true owner that his title is disputed.”
In the case of Craig v. Cartwright, 65 Tex. 413, 424, the Supreme Court of this State, in discussing what constitutes an adverse claim, announced the following rule: “Possession, with the exercise of such rights as pertain to an owner alone, must he deemed sufficient evidence of adverse claim, in the absence of some evidence indicating that it is held in subordination to the title of the real owner.”
Again, in Thompson et al. v. Richardson, supra [221 S.W. 953], we find the following language from the Commission of Appeals of Texas: “Under the ten years’ statute, no deed is necessary; no muniment of title is required; and the possession in compliance with the terms of the statute, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, carries with it the presumption that it is held under a claim to the land.”
Also, in the case of Cox et al. v. Sherman Hotel Co., Tex.Civ.App., 47 S.W. 808, 809, in discussing the significance of the term “under a claim of right” as used in the statute (article 5515 R.C.S.) defining adverse possession, the court said: “It is not meant by the expression ‘under a claim of right’ that the party in possession should make any claim to ownership of the land, otherwise than by a visible, hostile, exclusive, and continuous appropriation of the land. One may enter upon land as a naked trespasser, knowing that he has no title whatever, and intending to acquire title by limitations of 10 years; and if he continues in peaceable adverse possession for 10 years, cultivating, using, or enjoying the same, he will thereby acquire title to the land. It is the character of his possession, and not the claim of title Or ownership which he may assert, that is made the basis of the operation of the statute of limitations.”
*423Under these authorities it is our' opinion that appellee’s contention in this respect is without merit, and its motion for rehearing is overruled.