Court Opinion

ID: 9828629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:34:44.081055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.285805
License: Public Domain

*396ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
The motion of E. P. Thomason and other defendants in error who sought to have the judgment reviewed on cross assignments concludes with the following remarks: “We must confess we can not see how a party can recover land against another party when he acknowledges the title of the other party under limitation, when he does not even claim or plead limitation against him. In this case H. G. McConnell, as agent and attorney for Wm. C. King and his vendees, leased the land for them from 1891 to the trial of this case, thereby acknowledging their right to the same, and does not attempt to plead limitation against King or his vendees, but in the face of this the court holds that H. G. McConnell has acquired twenty-six and .two-thirds acres of the land these defendants in error are entitled to, notwithstanding the facts that there is. no pleading to warrant such a judgment and H. G. McConnell does not even claim that he is entitled to the same against these defendants in error mentioned herein. We earnestly insist that this is error, and that the court, should not deduct the twenty-six and two-thirds acres out of the land these defendants in error are entitled to, but should be deducted out of the plaintiffs in error’s part.”
As we understand the record the defendants in error submitting these remarks undertook to deraign title both from King and Para-more, and but for limitation were entitled to forty acres from each source. In announcing on the original hearing that they lost twenty-six and two-thirds acres by limitation in favor of McConnell we did not mean to hold, as the above remarks would indicate, that the land lost by limitation was any part of that covered by the title derived from King, in privity with which McConnell held possession. It was not strictly accurate, however, to say that twenty-six and two-thirds acres had been lost by limitation, since one-third of the Paramore interest, to which alone the adverse possession of' McConnell could have been applicable, only, amounted to one-half that quantity, but McConnell was entitled to hold an equal quantity of the King interest under his deed from King, which would work the same result. The remarks made on this subject in the original opinion were in answer to the contention of Thomason and others that they were entitled to recover more land than had been adjudged to them, but were perhaps superfluous, since no issue was raised in the court below between Thomason and others on the one hand and McConnell on the other, all of whom-were defendants, who merely filed separate answers to the petition of the plaintiffs and who were therefore not adversary parties. Nor, properly speaking, is any issue raised in this court between them, no writ of error having been prosecuted by Thomason and others against McConnell. So that if the judgment as between the defendants was in any respect erroneous, we would have no jurisdiction to correct it on this writ of error. Wliat we hold is that the plaintiffs in error, after receiving the additional quantity conceded to them by McConnell, have recovered all the land to which they were entitled and that the defendants in error have failed to show us that they were entitled to recover from the plaintiffs in error more land than was adjudged to them. Eesi'des, if otherwise entitled to relief the cross assignment *397claiming a greater recovery is entirely too general, as will be seen from the following authorities: Revised Statutes, art. 1018, rule 31; Tudor v. Hodges, 71 Texas, 392; Bayne v. Denny, 52 S. W. Rep., 983; Wright v. Wren, 16 S. W. Rep., 996; American Legion of Honor v. Rowell, 78 Texas, 677; Watzlavzick v. Oppenheimer, 38 Texas Civ. App., 306, and authorities there cited. Motion overruled.

Overruled.