Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Ennis-Calvert Compress Co.
Decision Date | 11 April 1900 |
Citation | 56 S.W. 367 |
Parties | HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO. v. ENNIS-CALVERT COMPRESS CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, McLennan county; Marshall Surratt, Judge.
Action by the Ennis-Calvert Compress Company against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company in trespass to try title to certain real estate. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Denman, Franklin, Cobbs & McGown, for appellant. L. W. Campbell, for appellee.
This is an action of trespass to try title; appellee being the plaintiff, and appellant the defendant. There was a non-jury trial, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed. In addition to the usual averments in a petition in trespass to try title, the plaintiff pleaded title by limitation. The defendant interposed a special exception to so much of the petition as undertook to plead title by limitation, and assigns the overruling of this exception as error. It is unnecessary to revise this ruling, because we are of the opinion that the testimony does not support the plea of limitation. The plaintiff sought to maintain its action upon two theories,—one being title by limitation; and the other, common source of title, the plaintiff's being the superior. We decide against the plaintiff on the first theory, and in its favor on the second. The common source of title was the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company, a corporation chartered the 11th day of March, 1848. June 11, 1877, said corporation conveyed the land in question to the Waco Produce Company, and the title thereto passed by mesne conveyances to the Waco-Ennis Compress Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of this state; and thereafter the latter corporation, in the mode provided by the statute, amended its charter, changing its name to the Ennis-Calvert Compress Company, the plaintiff in this cause. The deed referred to, of June 11, 1877, contained the following provision: The Waco Produce Company...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pence v. Tidewater Townsite Corp.
...W. 69; Bonniwell v. Madison, 107 Iowa, 85, 77 N. W. 530; Robinson v. Ingram, 126 N. C. 327, 35 S. E. 612; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Compress Co., 23 Tex. Civ. App. 441, 56 S. W. 367; Lewis v. Lewis, 74 Conn. 630, 51 Atl. 854, 92 Am. St. Rep. 240. "As to the mode of exercise of the right to e......
-
Sands v. Holbert
... ... Wagner, 94 Mo. 93, 7 S.W ... 19, 4 Am. St. Rep. 362, H. & T. C. R. Co. v. Ennis-Calvert, ... 23 Tex.Civ.App. 441, 56 S.W. 367, and Papst v ... Hamilton, 133 Cal. 631, 66 P. 10, as ... ...
-
Moore v. Sharpe
...Dig., § 736; 14 Ark. 493; 17 Id. 608, 672; 66 Id. 193; 1 Pet. 503; 44 Ark. 153; 16 Pa. St. (4 Harris) 146; 67 N.J.L. 288; 51 A. 781; 56 S.W. 367; 1 Nev. 40, 55; 7 Mo.App. 429; N.W. 530; 37 S.W. 485; 9 Bush, 211; 5 Pick. 528; 10 Id. 206; 21 Id. 215; 147 F. 938; 152 U.S. 453. 3. All lands in ......
-
McCarthy v. City of Houston, 68
...Dunman, 74 Tex. 265, 11 S.W. 1094; Lawyers Trust Company v. City of Houston, Tex., 359 S.W.2d 887; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Ennis-Calvert Compress Co., 23 Tex.Civ.App., 441, 56 S.W. 367, writ ref; Holmes v. McKnight, Tex.Civ.App., 373 S.W.2d The testimony discloses that shortly prior to Ja......