Alexander v. Louisiana & Texas Lumber Co.

Citation154 S.W. 235
PartiesALEXANDER et al. v. LOUISIANA & TEXAS LUMBER CO.
Decision Date07 January 1913
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

Appeal from District Court, Houston County; B. H. Gardner, Judge.

Action by the Louisiana & Texas Lumber Company against T. J. Alexander and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Madden & Ellis and Adams & Young, all of Crockett, for appellants. Nunn & Nunn, of Crockett, for appellee.

REESE, J.

This is an action of trespass to try title by the Louisiana & Texas Lumber Company against the Southern Pine Lumber Company, Joe Adams, R. J. Mosely, and E. R. Bennett to recover a section of land in Houston county. The Southern Pine Lumber Company disclaimed as to all the land sued for, except one tract of 160 acres and an undivided interest of 110 acres in another tract of the section, and also except as to the standing timber on 50 acres adjoining said 110 acres, as to which it pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations of five and ten years. Alexander pleaded the general issue, and adopted the answers of his codefendant, the Southern Pine Lumber Company, in so far as applicable. Mosely pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations of five and ten years. He also prayed to have corrected the deed from himself to Joe Adams, as to which latter plea the Louisiana & Texas Lumber Company interposed the defense of estoppel and the statute of limitation of four years. Bennett pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations of five and ten years, and sought to have corrected certain alleged mistakes in his deed to Alexander, as to which latter plea the Louisiana & Texas Lumber Company pleaded estoppel and the statute of limitations of four years. So far as the record shows, no answer was filed by the defendant Joe Adams. The foregoing statement of the pleadings is sufficient for the purpose of disposing of the issues presented on this appeal. Upon the trial, the court charged the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff unless they found for the defendants or some of them for all or some portion of the land under their plea of the statute of limitation of ten years, as to which they were specifically instructed in the charge. The jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff for all the land sued for, upon which judgment was rendered from which, their motions for a new trial having been overruled, all of the defendants appeal.

No objection is made to that part of the charge instructing the jury to find for the plaintiff unless its title as to all or some of the defendants, and as to all or some of the land, was defeated by their defense of the ten years' statute of limitation. We find, as a conclusion of fact, that the appellee was the owner of all the land sued for, and entitled to recover the same, unless its right was defeated, as charged by the court, by the defense of the statute of limitation of ten years. As to this issue, we have examined the evidence with great care, especially so in view of the fact that the assignments of error present the single issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Wolbol v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 1, 1917
    ... ... Howe v. Parker, 190 F. 738, 746, 747; U. S. v ... Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 338; Hemmer ... v. U.S., 204 F. 898, 905; ... ( Bradford ... v. Wegg, 102 N.E. 845; Alexander v. Lumber Co., ... 154 S.W. 235; Byrd v. Vanderburgh, 151 S.W. 184; ... ...
  • State v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 2595.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 25, 1945
    ...rules and they are now Rules Nos. 321 and 322 of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In this connection see Alexander v. Louisiana & Texas Lbr. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W. 235; Harlingen Land & Water Co. v. Houston Motor Co., Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W. 628; San Antonio U. & G. R. Co. v. Storey, Tex......
  • Kolacny v. Pelech
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 1947
    ...Water Co., v. Houston Motor Co., Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W. 628; Redman v. Cooper, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 318; Alexander v. Louisiana & Texas Lumber Co., Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W. 235; Thompson v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d 131; Cooper v. Cooper, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W. 2d 686; Walker-Smith ......
  • Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Teel
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 22, 1931
    ...(Tex. Civ. App.) 242 S. W. 331; Hopkins County Levee Imp. Dist. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 243 S. W. 793; Alexander v. La. & Tex. Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 154 S. W. 235; Fulwiler v. Daniel (Tex. Civ. App.) 280 S. W. But it appears that we have a discretion to consider the proposition, reg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT