Harris v. Hardeman
| Decision Date | 01 January 1863 |
| Citation | 27 Tex. 248 |
| Parties | L. HARRIS AND OTHERS v. W. P. HARDEMAN AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
The case of Wright v. Daily and others (26 Tex., 730) cited and approved, so far as the ruling therein relates to the title or color of title necessary to support the three years limitation.
Where the owner of land sold it to another, but remained in possession of it until his death, his heirs or those claiming under him could derive no title from him by inheritance, but were mere possessors without title, and consequently could not plead the limitations of three or five years.
The case of Harris v. Hardeman and others (15 Tex., 466) cited and approved.
APPEAL from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.
This is the second suit brought by the appellants for the land in controversy. Their first suit was brought to this court by appeal, and is reported in 15 Tex., p. 466, where a statement of the facts may be found.
Upon the trial of this suit at the fall term, 1859, the court charged: “If the jury believe Gillan sold the land in question in his lifetime, the plaintiffs, claiming as the heirs of Gillan, cannot recover, and you should find for the defendants.”
The plaintiffs, as heirs of Michael Gillan, attempted to prescribe under the limitations of three and five years, against the title set up by the defendants.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial. Motion overruled, and plaintiffs appealed.
W. Tunstall & Harwood, for the appellants.
Stewart, for appellees.
This case was before this court on a former appeal. It will be found reported in the 15th Tex. Rep., p. 466.
We are not able to perceive that the questions now presented differ in any material respect from those presented upon the former appeal. The plaintiffs below are appellants in this court, and their main reliance seems to be upon the statute of limitations. The grant from the government to Michael Gillan, under or from whom the plaintiffs claim, must have been produced in evidence on the first trial in the court below. If so, the question of limitation is presented precisely as it was when the case was formerly before this court. If, however, the grant to Gillan was, for the first time, presented in evidence on the last trial in the court below, as seems to be the statement of the counsel for the appellants, we have to say that the question of limitation, as thus presented, was decided by this court during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Baker
...Tex. 668, 9 S. W. 595; Paxton v. Meyer, 67 Tex. 96, 2 S. W. 817; Brownson v. Scanlan, 59 Tex. 222; Long v. Brenneman, Id. 210; Harris v. Hardeman, 27 Tex. 248; Wright v. Daily, 26 Tex. 3. The court did not err in charging that the deed from Raymer and wife to appellant, after the suit was b......
- Mathonican v. Scott
-
Gould v. W.'r
...Lentz could supply neither title nor color of title to his heirs, when he had conveyed the land in his life-time, counsel cited Harris v. Hardeman, 27 Tex. 248;Wright v. Dailey, 26 Tex. 731;Marsh v. Weir, 21 Tex. 110;Castro v. Wurzbach, 13 Tex. 128;Thompson v. Cragg, 24 Tex. 582;Elliott v. ......
-
Gholston v. Cook
...been conveyed to Cook, the possession would not be adverse. In support of that charge appellees refer to the following cases: Harris et al. v. Hardeman, 27 Tex. 248; Voight et al. v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78, 8 S. W. 623; Meurin v. Kopplin (Tex. Civ. App.) 100 S. W. 984; Wiess et al. v. Goodhue, ......