Flores v. Hovel
Decision Date | 02 February 1910 |
Parties | FLORES et al. v. HOVEL et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Hon. J. L. Camp, Judge.
Action by Jose Maria Flores and others against J. C. Hovel and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
J. B. Polley, Swearingen & Tayloe, and Don A. Bliss, for appellants. T. B. Cochran, Denman, Franklin & McGown, Houston, Boyle, Storey & Davis, and Cobbs, Taliaferro & Cunningham, for appellees.
This is an action of trespass to try title brought by appellants against J. C. Hovel and a number of others to recover possession and title of a certain tract of land containing 22 acres situated in the city of San Antonio, and specifically described in plaintiffs' petition. The defendants filed separate answers. Hovel, after disclaiming all of the land save a designated portion thereof, as to which he pleaded not guilty, the 3, 5, and 10 year statutes of limitation, and improvements in good faith. In replication to the pleas of limitation, certain of the defendants pleaded coverture. By consent of the parties, a severance of the case as to appellees was granted. The case then, as between plaintiffs and them, was tried before a jury, who, in obedience to a peremptory charge of the court, returned a verdict in favor of appellees. From the judgment rendered upon such verdict this appeal is prosecuted.
The first assignment complains of the court's peremptorily instructing a verdict for the defendants. The main proposition asserted under it is: First: "The grant to Vicente Flores, made by the Spanish government, acting through Baron Riperda, Governor of the province of Texas, in 1778, vested in Vicente Flores a perfect title to the land described in the grant, subject to a condition subsequent, and not an inchoate title."
In addition to it, are asserted these sub-propositions: (1)
The plaintiffs introduced in evidence an original document, in Spanish, produced from the office of the county clerk of Bexar county, Texas, together with what was shown to be a correct translation of the same into English, which is as follows:
The appellees, by their first cross-assignment of error, complain of the court's admitting said writings in evidence. The substance of the propositions under this cross-assignment is that they were inadmissible because: (1) They did not come from the proper custody, and did not appear free from suspicion; (2) that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
San Antonio River Authority v. Hunt
...James v. Hitchcock, 309 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App.1958, ref. n.r.e.); Spencer v. Levy, 173 S.W. 550 (Tex.Civ.App.1914, n.w.h.); Flores v. Hovel, 125 S.W. 606 (Tex.Civ.App.1910, n.w.h.); Magee v. Paul, 110 Tex. 470, 221 S.W. 254 (1920); Mackay v. Armstrong, 84 Tex. 159, 19 S.W. 463 (1892); Doh......
-
Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Staley Oil Co., 14035.
...18 A.L.R. 901; West v. Houston Oil Co., 56 Tex.Civ.App. 341, 120 S.W. 228, writ refused; Holmes v. Coryell, 58 Tex. 680; Flores v. Hovel, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W. 606; Hardin v. Sparks, 70 Tex. 429, 7 S.W. Nor does the acknowledgment of an ancient deed in the manner required by law dispense w......
-
Bidwell v. McCuen
...the rule has been quite generally, if not universally, adopted by the courts. Davis v. Wood, 161 Mo. 17, 61 S. W. 695;Flores v. Hovel (Tex. Civ. App.) 125 S. W. 606;West v. Houston Oil Company, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 341, 120 S. W. 228;Nicholson v. Lumber Company, 156 N. C. 59, 72 S. E. 86, 36 L......
-
Bidwell v. McCuen
...its custody must be consistent with the purpose of its execution. The law in this respect is stated by the Supreme Court of Texas, in Flores v. Hovel, supra, as "One of the prerequisites to the admission of an ancient written instrument in evidence is that it must be shown to have been in a......