Carr v. Alexander
Decision Date | 15 May 1912 |
Citation | 149 S.W. 218 |
Parties | CARR et al. v. ALEXANDER et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Williamson County; Chas. A. Wilcox, Judge.
Action by A. Alexander and others against Sarah Carr and others. From the judgment rendered, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
W. M. Allison and C. L. Harty, both of Georgetown, for appellants. Mantor & Briggs and T. J. Lawhon, all of Taylor, for appellees.
On May 17, 1910, A. Alexander instituted this suit against Sarah Carr and her husband, T. M. Carr, for the recovery of 183½ acres of land out of a 400-acre tract off of the north end of the Jefferson West survey, situated in Williamson county, and for a decree removing cloud and quieting title. Among other matters the plaintiff pleaded title by limitation. The defendants' answer contained a general demurrer, general denial, plea of not guilty and plea of non est factum as to a certain deed, and a special plea alleging that the 400 acres of land referred to in the plaintiff's petition was owned jointly and as cotenants by the defendant Sarah Carr and Elizabeth Arledge, and that the plaintiff was claiming title under the latter; and the defendants made Elizabeth Arledge, H. F. Ryals, and C. H. Windemeyer parties, and set up a cross-action against them and the plaintiff, whereby they sought to have Mrs. Carr's right to recover an undivided half of the 400 acres established and to have a partition. The defendants Ryals and Windemeyer filed answers, in which the former claimed title to 150 acres and the latter to 50 acres, each specially pleading their title under the five and ten year statutes of limitation. The Carrs filed a supplemental answer in reply to the plaintiff's plea of title by limitation, setting up the coverture of Sarah Carr, tenancy in common, and negativing any disseisin or ouster. Upon the several issues thus presented the case was submitted to the trial court without a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff Alexander for the 183½ acres of land sued for by him, and for the defendants Ryals and Windemeyer, respectively, for the lands claimed by them, and that Elizabeth Arledge go hence and recover costs, and that the Carrs take nothing and pay all costs, and the latter have prosecuted this appeal.
The trial judge filed the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are supported by the testimony and adopted by this court:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Storthz
...or notorious acts of an unequivocal character." 99 Ark. 451; 109 Ark. 281; 55 Ark. 109; 69 Ark. 95; 80 Ark. 444; 77 Ark. 201; 90 Ark. 149; 102 Ark. 611; 99 Ark. A deed to an undivided interest will not be color of title so as to support constructive possession. 73 A. 1025; 55 Ark. 109; 88 A......
-
McKenzie v. Grant
...Tex. 527, 119 S.W. 1142; Nevill v. Hinkle (Tex.Civ. App.) 276 S.W. 324; Keith v. Keith, 39 Tex.Civ.App. 363, 87 S.W. 384; Carr v. Alexander (Tex.Civ.App.) 149 S.W. 218; Toole v. Renfro, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 450, 114 S.W. 450; Robles v. Robles (Tex.Civ.App.) 154 S.W. 230; Terry v. Terry (Tex.Civ.......
-
Vaugilan v. Hollingsworth
... ... Keith, 170 Wis. 524, 174 N.W. 551; Hynds v ... Hynds, 253 Mo. 20, 161 S.W. 812; Mathews v ... Baker, 47 Utah 532, 155 P. 427; Carr v. Alexander ... (Tex. Civ.), 149 S.W. 218; Wilson v. Hoover, ... 154 Ky. 1, 156 S.W. 880; Winterburn v. Chambers, 91 Cal. 170, ... 27 P. 658.) ... ...
-
Hurie v. Quigg
...notice is not indispensable. Possession as it was and exclusive ownership as claimed was open, notorious, and adverse. Carr v. Alexander (Tex. Civ. App.) 149 S.W. 218; Amyx v. Fetter et al. (Ky.) 203 Ky. 248, 262 S.W. 251; Hardy Oil Co. v. Burnham (Tex. Civ. App.) 58 Tex. Civ. App. 285, 124......