Frazier v. Houston Oil Co.
Decision Date | 31 October 1913 |
Parties | FRAZIER et ux. v. HOUSTON OIL CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hardin County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Trespass to try title by W. S. Frazier and wife against the Houston Oil Company and others. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Jno. L. Little, of Kountze, for appellants. Hightower, Orgain & Butler and J. D. Campbell, both of Beaumont, for appellees.
This is an action in trespass to try title by W. S. Frazier and wife against the Houston Oil Company, to recover the title and possession of 160 acres of land, part of the G. W. Brooks survey in Hardin county. Plaintiffs sought to recover upon a limitation title under the statute of limitation of ten years. It was agreed It was further agreed that plaintiffs' possession began in 1875. The evidence showed that plaintiffs had had actual possession by inclosure and improvements of 12 acres of the land, included within his inclosure. As to the remainder of the 160 acres, the defense rested upon constructive possession of the league in the several owners in defendant's chain of title through tenants, under leases, from 1883 up to the date of filing of the suit, thus limiting appellants' right of recovery to the land actually inclosed. The case was tried by the court, resulting in a judgment for appellants for this 12 acres and for appellees for the remainder. Appellees were adjudged to pay the costs. From the judgment appellants prosecute this appeal. Incidentally, appellants claimed that J. W. Hilton had cut and removed timber from the land of the value of $50, which had been deposited with one Collier to await the event of the suit. For this sum appellees also had judgment.
The first, sixth, and eighteenth assignments of error are addressed solely to appellant's right to recover the 160 acres upon the evidence as to his actual possession under the ten-year statute, without reference to the evidence as to appellees' constructive possession of the entire league (except that actually inclosed) limiting appellant's right to recovery to the 12 acres; the questions arising upon this latter claim being presented by other assignments. As to these assignments, the undisputed evidence seems to bear out appellant's contention as to his adverse possession of the 160 acres sued for, and his right to recover the same, less the several tracts sold by him, except in so far as that right is limited by the constructive possession of appellee and its vendors as aforesaid.
This brings us to the assignments of error from 8 to 11, also the thirteenth and fourteenth assignments of error, which complain of the action of the court in admitting in evidence certain lease contracts entered into by certain persons with the several owners in appellees' chain of title. Under these assignments appellant states the following proposition of law: "Where a tenant in possession of land is holding under a lease which describes the property as the `premises' occupied by the lessee, or in any manner designates the property the tenant is to occupy, the possession of the tenant inures to the benefit of the landlord only to the extent designated in the lease, and the landlord has no constructive possession of the balance of the tract without the designated portion."
Each of the leases referred to was substantially to the following tenor and effect: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Houston Oil Co. v. Village Mills Co.
...in suit a restrictive one. Our views in this connection have been so well stated by Justice Reese in the case of Frazier v. Houston Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 161 S. W. 20, that we content ourselves by referring to that case. The Frazier Case did not reach the Supreme Court on writ of error, ......
-
Village Mills Co. v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas
...possession to the entire league. We do not consider that our decision in the instant case is in conflict with the case of Frazier v. Houston Oil Co., 161 S. W. 20. In the Frazier Case, it was admitted that the legal title to all of the land in controversy was in the Houston Oil Company, and......
-
Houston Oil Co. v. Niles
...Tex. 94, 122 S. W. 533, 124 S. W. 85, may be considered authority upon the question. Other cases upon the subject are Frazier v. Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 161 S. W. 20; Word v. Colley (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S. W. 629; Hanks v. Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S. W. 635; and Oil Co. v. Village Mill......
-
W. T. Carter & Bro. v. Collins
...the actual ouster. Whitehead v. Foley, 28 Tex. 284; Evitts v. Wroth, 61 Tex. 84; Bowles v. Brice, 66 Tex. 730, 2 S. W. 729; Houston Oil Co. v. Frazier, 161 S. W. 20; Village Mills Co. v. Houston Oil Co., 186 S. W. 785. Assignments of error 6, 7, 8, and 14, therefore, are We do not find any ......