Koehler v. Cochran
| Decision Date | 16 June 1898 |
| Parties | KOEHLER v. COCHRAN et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
F. F. Chew, Sr., and L. S. Fawcett, for plaintiff. Jones & Garnett, for defendants.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered for the defendants in error in a suit of trespass to try title brought by the plaintiff in error to recover one-half of 39¼ acres of land situated within the corporate limits of the city of Houston; the same being a part of the W. ½ of the Luke Moore league, and described in the petition as the W. ½ of lot No. 6. The defense to the suit was, "Not guilty." The case was tried by the judge of the court without the interposition of a jury, and the plaintiff in error insists that the findings of the court are not sustained by the evidence; and we are of the opinion that this contention cannot be maintained, and that the judgment should be affirmed. The facts, as we conclude them to be, from the record, are substantially these: Both parties claim the land under and through one Johan Moehr, now dead. In 1884 the plaintiff, Koehler, desiring to purchase an inclosed lot of land, containing about 20 acres, lying immediately west of and adjoining the land in controversy, and not having the money to make the purchase, prevailed upon Moehr to buy the property, and to sell it to him (plaintiff) on time. At the time of the purchase by Moehr, he was the owner of the land in controversy, and continued to own it until his death, and after his death it was purchased from the representatives of his estate by the defendants. In 1839 the W. ½ of the Luke Moore league, including the land in controversy, and the tract sold the plaintiff by Moehr in 1884, was subdivided by its owner into lots, and in making this subdivision the surveyor erroneously placed the west boundary line of the Luke Moore league 125 varas west of its actual location; and in 1861 this error was discovered by a surveyor of Harris county, and subsequent to that date the identification and location of these lots in this subdivision of the land has been sometimes ascertained and determined by assuming the western boundary of the league to be that line established as such boundary by Surveyor Powars in 1861, and at other times by assuming the western boundary to be the line established as such by Surveyor Trott when he made the subdivision in 1839 for its then owners. The 39¼ acres, of which the land conveyed to Koehler by Moehr in 1884 is a part, is thus described in the conveyance: The W. ½ of 39¼ acres of land, a part of lot 6 of the subdivision of the W. ½ of the Luke Moore league, and bounded as follows: Beginning at the S. W. corner of lot 4 of said subdivision; thence S., 20 deg. W., 430 varas, to a pin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald v. Fort Smith & Western Railroad Co.
...23 Cyc. 1072. 2. Evidence dehors the record was not admissible to show that the judgment was void. 39 Ark. 242; 32 N.E. 920; 112 Ind. 221; 47 S.W. 394. 3. judgment was not void, but voidable only on a showing of a meritorious defense. 148 S.W. 1038; 51 Ark. 224; 57 Id. 628; 114 Cal. 218; 63......
-
International Fire Insurance Co. v. Black
...but it is whether or not there is evidence to support them." Wells v. Yarbrough, 84 Tex. 660, 19 S. W. 865; Koehler v. Cochran, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 196, 47 S. W. 394. In a letter dated January 12, 1912, plaintiff in error advised Littlejohn that "the International will not write farm property......