Hill v. Friday
| Decision Date | 15 November 1902 |
| Citation | 70 S.W. 567 |
| Parties | HILL v. FRIDAY et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Ellis county; J. E. Dillard, Judge.
Trespass to try title by T. S. Hill against J. A. and H. J. Friday. Judgment for defendants, and order denying new trial, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
This suit was instituted by appellant against appellees as defendants in the usual form of trespass to try title to recover 16 acres of land out of the John Kerr survey, in Ellis county, Tex. The petition was filed August 27, 1901, and service was had on defendants on November 21, 1901, to answer to the December term of said court. On December 3, 1901, defendants answered by general denial, plea of not guilty, and the statutes of limitations of three, five, and ten years. On the 4th day of December, 1901, the case was called, and plaintiff's attorneys failed to appear; whereupon judgment was entered that plaintiff take nothing by the suit, and that defendants recover against plaintiff title to the land in controversy, and devesting title out of plaintiff and any one claiming under him, and vesting the same in defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial, which was overruled on January 22, 1902; whereupon the plaintiff appealed to this court.
Callecutt & Call, for appellant. Templeton & Harding, for appellees.
BOOKHOUT, J. (after stating the facts).
It is contended that in a suit of trespass to try title where the defendant seeks no affirmative relief in his pleadings, and plaintiff fails to appear and prosecute his suit, the only judgment which can be rendered is one dismissing the suit for want of prosecution. The answer of appellees was a general denial, plea of not guilty, and pleas setting up the statutes of limitations of three, five, and ten years. When the case was called on appearance day, to wit, December 4, 1901, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared; whereupon the court entered judgment that defendants go hence without day, and recover of the plaintiff and those claiming under or through him the land described in the plaintiff's petition, and devesting all title of plaintiff in said land out of him, and vesting same in defendants, and forever quieting their title, and barring plaintiff or any person holding or claiming under him, and for costs. There being no pleading on the part of the defendants, setting up title in themselves and asking for affirmative relief, the action of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. Freeman
...are legion. Burger v. Young, 78 Tex. 656, 15 S.W. 107; Truehart v. Simpson, Tex.Civ.App., 24 S.W. 842, no writ history; Hill v. Friday, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W. 567, no writ history; Robinson v. Collier, 53 Tex.Civ.App. 285, 115 S.W. 915, no writ history; Johnson v. Griffiths & Co., Tex.Civ.Ap......
-
Scarborough v. Ward
...by the authorities that we deem it only necessary to cite them. Robinson v. Collier, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 285, 115 S. W. 915; Hill v. Friday, 70 S. W. 567; Burger v. Young, 78 Tex. 656, 15 S. W. 107; Allen v. Ft. Stockton Irrigated Lands Co., 135 S. W. 682; Drummond v. Lewis, 157 S. W. It is t......