East Texas Land & Improvement Co. v. Shelby

• Decision Date: 06 May 1897
• Citation: 41 S.W. 542
• Parties: EAST TEXAS LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO. v. SHELBY et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

41 S.W. 542

EAST TEXAS LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO. v. SHELBY et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Jasper county, Stephen P. West, Judge.

Trespass to try title by R. P. Shelby & Bro. against the East Texas Land & Improvement Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Votaw & Chester and Seale & Beaty, for appellant. W. B. Powell, for appellees.

WILLIAMS, J.

Appellees, alleging title in themselves from 10 years' adverse and peaceable possession under the statute of limitations, brought this suit to recover of appellant 320 acres of land, part of the William Pharis league in Jasper county. The defendant pleaded general denial and not guilty. The defendant, at the trial, admitted that the plaintiffs had been "in the actual, continuous, exclusive, adverse, and hostile possession of the land sued for, using, cultivating, and enjoying the same, for more than ten years, to wit, from 1856 to 1880, and that after they abandoned it, in 1880, no one resided on or in any manner occupied the land. The plaintiffs admitted that the defendant held the legal paper title by regular consecutive chain from and under the sovereignty of the soil down to the defendant. Plaintiffs admitted that the East Texas Land & Improvement Company bought the land in controversy in good faith for sufficient and valuable consideration, duly paid for same without actual notice of plaintiffs' claim, save and except such notice (if any) as the presence of the remains of the old settlement, such as old fences, dilapidated houses, and old fields all abandoned (not occupied or used) at the time of defendant's purchase, might constitute; and that there was no record whatever of plaintiffs' title or claim at the time of or prior to defendant's purchase, and that the defendant had no actual notice of plaintiffs' title or claim when it so purchased." It was also admitted that defendant was a corporation capable of taking and holding the title to the land. Upon these facts the court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

It is urged, first, that the admission as to plaintiffs' prior possession does not show that such possession was peaceable. A possession, to meet the requirements of the statute, must be peaceable as well as adverse. But the statute defines peaceable possession to be "such as is continuous, and not interrupted by adverse suit to recover the estate." Rev. St. 1895, art. 3348. The admission is that the...