Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Jordan

• Decision Date: 01 June 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 234-3418.)
• Parties: HOUSTON OIL CO. OF TEXAS v. JORDAN et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

231 S.W. 320

HOUSTON OIL CO. OF TEXAS v. JORDAN et al.

(No. 234-3418.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

June 1, 1921.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Ninth Supreme Judicial District.

Actions by the Houston Oil Company of Texas against L. N. Jordan and others, and against John W. Robbins and others, consolidated. From judgment of Court of Civil Appeals (212 S. W. 544), affirming judgments of the district court, the plaintiff brings error. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part and rendered.

H. O. Head, of Sherman, and Kennerly, Williams, Lee & Hill, and Fred L. Williams, all of Houston, for plaintiff in error.

K. W. Denman, of Lufkin, for defendants in error.

POWELL, J.

This is an action in trespass to try title, instituted in the district court of San Augustine county, Tex., by the Houston Oil Company of Texas, for the recovery of 25 acres of land claimed by L. N. Jordan and wife, Laura Jordan, and L. A. Jordan and wife, Mary Jordan. In the same court, at the same time, the same company was suing John W. Robbins et al. for the recovery of 50 acres of land in the same survey. By agreement of all the parties, the causes were consolidated and tried together before the court, without a jury. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff in error for the 50-acre tract, and in favor of L. N. Jordan and wife for the 25 acres. No conclusions of law or findings of fact were filed by the trial court.

Robbins et al. excepted to the judgment as to the 50-acre tract and gave notice of appeal. They filed assignments of error in the trial court, but filed no brief in the Court of Civil Appeals. The latter court, finding no fundamental error apparent on the face of the record, affirmed the judgment of the trial court, awarding the 50 acres to plaintiff in error. See 212 S. W. 544.

The Houston Oil Company of Texas perfected its appeal from the judgment awarding the 25 acres to L. N. Jordan and wife and filed briefs in the higher court. The Court of Civil Appeals, in passing upon that phase of the case, says:

"We therefore conclude at the outset that plaintiff in error showed a superior title to the 25 acres in controversy as against the Jordans, and should have recovered, unless the judgment of the court should be sustained upon the theory that defendants in error showed title by limitation under the five years' statute. After a careful consideration of the record, in connection with the plea of five years' limitation, we have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the judgment in favor of the defendants in error upon that plea."

And, again, said court held:

"In the case last mentioned, it seems to have been, in effect, held that the five-year statute of limitations does not require, in order to acquire title by adverse possession that taxes be paid before they...