Holman v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 23 January 1904
• Citation: 78 S.W. 989
• Parties: HOLMAN et al. v. PATTERSON.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

78 S.W. 989

HOLMAN et al. v. PATTERSON.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

January 23, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County, T. F. Nash, Judge.

Action by Ed M. Patterson against J. Q. Holman and others for a right of way. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Sauer & Sauer, for appellants. Randolph Paine and W. A. Kemp, for appellee.

TALBOT, J.

J. M. Patterson and his wife, Sarah E. Patterson, formerly owned lots Nos. 12, 13, 18, and 19 in block No. 229 in the city of Dallas, Tex. On the 25th day of August they conveyed, by deed duly executed, to their son, Ed M. Patterson, appellee herein, all of said lots 12 and 19, and a strip 13 feet by 25 feet off the rear ends of the northeast halves of said lots Nos. 13 and 18. Lot 12 lies contiguous to and northeast of lot 13, and both front on Ross avenue; and lot 19 lies northeast of and contiguous to lot 18, and immediately south of lot 12; and lot 18 lies immediately south of lot 13, and both 18 and 19 front on Camp street. There is no alley between the rear ends of lots 12 and 13 and 18 and 19, and the fractional lot 13 feet by 25 feet, being taken from the rear ends of lots 13 and 18, is about midway between Ross avenue and Camp street, and is wholly surrounded by lots 12 and 19 on the northeast and the balance of lots 13 and 18 on north, south, and west. Said lots 12 and 19 and 13 and 18 are about 50 feet wide by 100 feet long each. In conveying lots 12 and 19 and the fractional lot 13×25 feet to appellee, the said J. M. Patterson and wife reserved to themselves a "life interest" therein. What this "life interest" was, more than the expression indicates, does not appear. On the 8th day of March, 1901, J. M. Patterson and wife and appellee, Ed M. Patterson, by separate warranty deeds, conveyed to appellants J. Q. Holman and Annie W. Holman said lots 12 and 19, and at this time his fractional lot was surrounded with a fence. Prior to this last date appellants Holman and Hughes had bought all of said lots 13 and 18, except appellee's fractional part thereof, from parties to whom J. M. Patterson and wife had conveyed. On June 4, 1902, J. M. Patterson and his wife, Sarah E. Patterson, by quitclaim deed, conveyed to appellee, Ed M. Patterson, all the interest they had reserved or had in and to said fractional lot 13×25 feet. At the date of the institution of this suit appellee, Ed M. Patterson, was the sole owner of the said parcel of land 13 feet by 25 feet, the said Holman and wife were the owners of said lots 12 and 19, and the said Holman and Hughes were the joint owners of the remaining portion of said lots 13 and 18. Appellants had built upon said lots owned by them barns and sheds of the approximate value of $1,500, and were using the same, among other things, for a lumber yard. Some part of the sheds or barns built by appellants Holman and Hughes extended over on lots 12 and 19, and between said lots and appellee's fractional lot, and appellant Hughes owned a half interest in said sheds. Before this suit was brought appellants had inclosed the entire property with a fence, rented a part of it to appellant Chick, and appellee's ingress and egress to and from his said fractional lot was entirely cut off. There was no express reservation or mention of a right of way in appellee's deed to appellants Holman and wife for lots 12 and 19, nor in any of the deeds conveying the property mentioned. Being desirous of building a house on his said fractional lot, and having been refused admission to the same, appellee brought this suit, and prayed the court, in the event appellants refused to point out a way, that the court grant, define, and establish for his use a right of way over appellants' lands, as suggested and described in his petition. All the appellants answered by general demurrers, special exceptions, and general denial. Holman and wife pleaded specially, in substance, that they owned said lots 12 and 19, and an undivided one half interest in said lots 13 and 18, and that appellant Hughes owns the other half interest; that they had bought the same from different parties, and had no notice of any claim of right of way by appellee; that none had been asserted; and that their interest in lots 13 and 18 had been bought from adverse parties to plaintiff; that appellants Holman and wife had bought lots 12 and 19 from appellee, paying him therefor the sum of $3,000, and receiving from him a general warranty deed; that appellee knew appellants were making valuable improvements on the property, asserted no right to a way over their property to his, and is estopped now to claim such way. They set up their improvements, and asked judgment for their damages in case a right of way was established as prayed for by appellee. Appellant J. V. Hughes, in addition to his general and special demurrers, pleaded that he owned an undivided one-half interest...