French v. Olive
| Decision Date | 18 February 1887 |
| Citation | 3 S.W. 568 |
| Parties | FRENCH and others <I>v.</I> OLIVE and another. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Tom J. Russell, for appellants. Douglass & Lanier, for appellees.
The appellants, who were plaintiffs below, set up title to the land in controversy, by virtue of the statute of limitations of five years. The cause was tried without a jury, and the judge's special findings of law and fact do not appear in the record. The evidence disclosed in the statement of facts shows that appellants wholly failed to make out their case in one essential particular. In our opinion, their evidence was not sufficient to show a payment of taxes for the term of five years. They claimed that the title was perfected by virtue of the adverse possession of one R. S. Holland, who held under a deed from the tax collector of Jefferson county, dated in 1850, which county then embraced the land now in controversy. Holland's possession extended, it seems, over a period of eight years, beginning about the year 1850. A certified copy of the tax-rolls was produced for the years from 1851 to 1858, inclusive. All the rolls showed that the land was assessed to Holland. Upon each of the rolls for the first three years was written the word "paid," opposite the assessment in question; but this did not appear upon the roll for any subsequent year. A witness testified that the tax collector of Jefferson county for 1852, and for several years afterwards, was one Worthy Patridge, and that he was often with Patridge when he was collecting taxes, and that it was his invariable custom when taxes were paid to give a receipt, and to write the word "paid" in a blank column of the roll opposite the assessment. This may be evidence to show that the taxes were paid by Holland during the first three years; but, if that be so, it does not show any payment for the subsequent years. On the contrary, it tends rather to repel that conclusion. There being no other evidence introduced to establish this essential fact, the court was authorized to give judgment for the defendant.
But the defendants introduced their chain of title, and the court adjudged, not only that plaintiffs take nothing by their suit, but also that their claim upon the land was removed as a cloud upon defendants' title, and defendants forever quieted in their right. There are several assignments of error, complaining of the action of the court in admitting evidence, over appellants' objection, offered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston Oil Co. v. Village Mills Co.
...is as effective in the defendant's favor as though the land in controversy had been expressly adjudged to the latter. See French v. Olive, 67 Tex. 401, 3 S. W. 568; Railway Co. v. McGehee, 49 Tex. 482; Land Co. v. Votaw (Tex. Civ. App.) 52 S. W. 125; Latta v. Wiley (Tex. Civ. App.) 92 S. W.......
-
Permian Oil Co. v. Smith
...their answer would be more difficult. It is true, as pointed out by some of the defendants, that in every decision from French v. Olive, 67 Tex. 400, 3 S.W. 568, down to that announced in this case in the original opinion by the Commission of Appeals, title itself was actually the issue tri......
-
Permian Oil Co. v. Smith
...defendant, and such a judgment is equally as effective for that purpose as one expressly vesting title in the defendant. French v. Olive, 67 Tex. 400, 3 S. W. 568, 569; Wilson v. Swasey (Tex. Sup.) 20 S. W. 48; Hoodless v. Winter, 80 Tex. 638, 16 S. W. 427, 428; Houston Oil Co. v. Village M......
-
Kirby v. Houston Oil Co. of Tex., 4668
...564, 569, 111 A.L.R. 1152, in construing the above article of the statutes, referred to the opinion of Justice Gaines in French v. Olive, 67 Tex. 400, 3 S.W. 568, and stated the following rule: '* * * That when the plaintiff failed for any reason, whether it be due to conflict with a senior......