Gestean v. Bishop
| Citation | 180 S.W. 302 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 498.) |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
| Parties | GESTEAN et al. v. BISHOP et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Action by Clark Bishop and others against Anna Gestean and husband. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Coldwell & Sweeney, of El Paso, for plaintiffs in error. F. G. Morris and M. W. Stanton, both of El Paso, for defendants in error.
Defendants in error sued Daniel Gestean and Wife, Anna Gestean, in trespass to try title, and recovered. Gestean and wife prosecute this writ of error.
Anna Gestean claimed title in her own right by virtue of the ten-year statute of limitation. There is evidence in the record that Gestean and wife went into possession of the lots in controversy, and remained in possession thereof until the date of the filing of this suit on July 6, 1911. On May 25, 1907, Daniel Gestean, the husband, intervened in a suit pending in the district court of El Paso county, wherein Clark Bishop and others sued Winn and Thorn to recover the title and possession of the premises involved in the present suit. The intervener claimed the premises in his own right by virtue of the ten-year statute of limitation. The plaintiffs in said suit recovered judgment against the intervener and the other parties thereto.
In the present suit the court in its charge instructed the jury that the ten-year statute of limitation ceased to run in favor of Anna Gestean upon May 25, 1907, when her husband intervened in said suit of Clark Bishop and others against Winn and Thorn. It is contended by plaintiffs in error that this intervention by the husband did not stop the running of the statute of limitation in favor of the wife, and same continued to run in her favor up to the date the present suit was filed, and the court therefore erred in that portion of his charge limiting the period of the operation of the statute to May 25, 1907. This is the only error assigned. The record does not show that this objection to the charge was urged in the court below and exception taken, as is required by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, p. 113. For this reason the assignments must be overruled.
Careful consideration has been given to the able argument of counsel, insisting that the error in the charge complained of is fundamental in its nature, or an error in law apparent upon the face of the record, and that as to such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sivalls Motor Co. v. Chastain
...166 S. W. 495, cited by appellee on this point, we have also considered other cases to the same effect, as follows: Gestean v. Bishop (Tex. Civ. App.) 180 S. W. 302; Alderete v. Cabello (Tex. Civ. App.) 278 S. W. 950; McKenzie v. Imperial Irrigation Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 166 S. W. 495; Mynat......
-
Schelb v. Sparenberg
...be fundamental, must be called to the court's attention, and several cases are cited to support this holding, including Gestean v. Bishop (Tex.Civ.App.) 180 S.W. 302, 181 S.W. We believe that Mr. Justice Hawkins, speaking for the Supreme Court in Electric Express & Baggage Co. v. Ablon, 110......
-
Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Sparra
...not so made and presented must be considered as waived. * * * The fact that the error may be fundamental is immaterial. Gestean v. Bishop (Tex. Civ. App.) 180 S. W. 302. Errors in court charges are usually of that nature, but the statute does not except from its operation errors in the char......
-
Byrne v. Texas Lumber & Loan Co.
...Pearce v. Lodge, 190 S. W. 1156; Carr v. Bank, 189 S. W. 988; Strong v. Harwell, 185 S. W. 676; Ry. Co. v. Wheat, 173 S. W. 974; Gestean v. Bishop, 180 S. W. 302. The right of a litigant to appeal from a judgment against him and his right to a review by an appellate court of proceedings res......