Houston v. Sneed

• Decision Date: 01 January 1855
• Parties: MARION HOUSTON v. JOHN J. SNEED.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

15 Tex. 307

MARION HOUSTON

v.JOHN J. SNEED.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1855.

Where adjoining proprietors not being able to find the true division line between them, agree verbally upon a certain line, it seems that subsequent purchasers without notice would be bound by such agreement. [10 Tex. 340;17 Tex. 417;28 Tex. 130.]

As between adjoining proprietors, possession by one up to a certain line, by improvements, is notice to a purchaser from the other, of the extent of the claim of the former, and of any verbal agreement of previous owners by which such line was made the division line.

A possessor in good faith is one who not only supposes himself to be the true owner of the land, but who is ignorant that his title is contested by any person claiming a better right; and it was intimated in Sartain v. Hamilton (12 Tex. 219), that the rule ought, in a proper case, to be extended further in support of the right to recover compensation for improvements made in good faith. [12 Tex. 219;19 Tex. 194;24 Tex. 366.]

Error from Travis.

Haralson, Flournoy & Robards, for plaintiff in error.

Turner & Sneed, for defendant in error.

LIPSCOMB, J.

This suit grew out of the difficulty of ascertaining the division line between the lands once owned by McKinney and Horton. The line of partition of the lands of those persons had been run, and the plaintiff claimed title under Horton, and the defendant from McKinney; both claimed to this division line, and their title claimed it as the boundary between them. The evidence shows that there is great difficulty in establishing this line. After many surveys had been made, and more than one by the county surveyor, who surveyed under an order of court in this case, he swears that he is not certain that he found the line, and believes he did not. It is in evidence that Franks, who was the purchaser under McKinney, and who is the vendor of Houston, commenced the improvements now occupied by Houston, and was informed by Friend, who then owned the land now owned by the plaintiff Sneed, “that he was over the division line, and on the land of him, Friend; that he would not pay him for the improvements, but that it was of little consequence to him, however, as he was about to sell out, but that Franks did not know into whose hands he might fall;” that Friend sold out to Miller; that Franks suspended his improvement, when very little had been done, on receiving the notice given to him by Friend; that Miller and Franks, after several unsuccessful efforts to find the division line, mutually agreed upon and adopted a line between them, planting a stake to designate it. This line would leave the improvements on the land of the defendant Houston. At the time when this agreed line was made, Miller was the owner of the land on the Horton side of the division line; had paid for it and held a bond for title; neither Miller nor Friend had ever received deeds for it. Sneed, the purchaser from Miller, received a deed from Raymond and Swisher, who held by deed from Horton.

In the investigation of this case some days ago, we were of opinion that as there was no record evidence of the agreement between Miller and Franks, and no notice proven to Sneed, when he became the purchaser from Miller, he could not be affected by it, and that his right and title called for the true line of division that had been run between McKinney and Horton, and that if Franks and his vendee Houston trespassed over that line, it was at their peril and gave them no right to compensation for such improvements, and we delivered an opinion...