Chapman v. Dearman
| Decision Date | 04 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 22.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Citation | 181 S.W. 808 |
| Parties | CHAPMAN v. DEARMAN et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; A. E. Davis, Judge.
Action by J. R. Chapman against James Dearman and others, in which the defendant James Dearman filed a cross-action in trespass to try title. From a judgment for defendants and order dissolving a temporary injunction theretofore issued as to a portion of the land, and from an order overruling motion for new trial, the plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and judgment rendered.
Terry, Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, for appellant. Powell & Huffman, of Jasper, for appellees.
This suit was filed in the district court of Jasper county, by J. R. Chapman, against James Dearman and wife, Lettie Dearman, and Isaac Dearman, for the title and possession of all of the pine timber located on the W. A. Isaacs 160-acre survey of land in Jasper county, and for an injunction restraining the said James Dearman, Lettie Dearman, and Isaac Dearman from cutting the timber on the said land. The defendant Isaac Dearman answered by disclaimer, and the defendants James Dearman and wife, Lettie Dearman, answered denying that the plaintiff had any right to the timber located on said land, and filed a cross-action in trespass to try title for said land. Upon the trial of the case, plaintiff disclaimed any interest in the land other than the timber located upon the same, and the cross-action of the defendants was dismissed. The case was tried before the court without a jury, the court finding that the plaintiff had a deed from the defendants to the timber located on said land, but that under said deed the same should have been removed from the land within a reasonable time, which the court found to be ten years, and which time had expired. The court further found that the defendants had, previous to the filing of this suit, parted with any title which they might have had in and to the north half of said survey, and rendered judgment for the defendants against the plaintiff for all of the timber located on the south half of said survey, and dissolving the injunction which had been theretofore issued as to said south half, but rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the north half of said survey, and making perpetual the injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the timber from the same. Motion for new trial was duly filed, and an amended motion, which was by the court overruled. Appeal bond was duly filed, and the cause is here presented for adjudication.
The deed under which plaintiff held, and upon the construction of which depends the decision of this case, is as follows:
In the case of Lodwick Lumber Co. v. Taylor, 100 Tex. 270, 98 S. W. 238, 123 Am. St. Rep. 803, the court had before it the construction of an instrument similar in many respects to the instant case. It was as follows:
In consideration of the sum of $100 to him paid, the deed says:
The following questions were certified to the Supreme Court:
Question 1. Did the title of the timber not removed from the land within a reasonable time revert to the owner of the soil?
Question 2. Does the Lodwick Lumber Company owe Taylor for the value of the timber cut and removed without his consent after the expiration of a reasonable time from the making of the original contract of sale?
Both of the above questions were answered by the Supreme Court in the negative, and, rendering the opinion in that case, the court says:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummer Co. v. Yager
......v. Crawford (Okl.) 160. P. 917; Garden City Stave & Heading Co. v. Sims, 84. Ark. 603, 106 S.W. 959; Liston v. Chapman & Dewey Land. Co., 77 Ark. 116, 91 S.W. 27; McRae v. Stillwell, 111 Ga. 65, 36 S.E. 604, 55 L. R. A. 513;. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Boykin ... enter or an intention to remove the granted timber. This case. was followed by a divided court in Chapman v. Dearman. (Tex. Civ. App.) 181 S.W. 808, where there was a grant. of a right to enter to remove the timber. In North. Georgia Co. v. Bebee, 128 Ga. 563, 57 ......
-
New River Lumber Co. v. Blue Ridge Lumber Co.
...case is followed in Jones v. Lodwick Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 99 S.W. 736, a case involving a similar contract. In Chapman v. Dearman (Tex. Civ. App.) 181 S.W. 808, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Texas in 229 S.W. 1112, deed recited that in consideration of a stated sum the grantors ha......
-
New River Lumber Co. v. Blue Ridge Lumber Co.
...case is followed in Jones v. Lodwick Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 99 S. W. 736, a case involving a similar contract. In Chapman v. Dearman (Tex. Civ. App.) 181 S. W. 808, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Texas in 229 S. W. 1112, the deed recited that in consideration of a stated sum the gran......
-
Lewis v. Bennette
...timber was already vested in them, the Griffiths. There is now pending in our Supreme Court a case appealed from this court (Chapman v. Dearman, 181 S. W. 808); to be more correct, the case was certified by this court to the Supreme Court, this court holding that a deed conveying the timber......