League v. Atchison
Decision Date | 01 December 1867 |
Citation | 6 Wall. 112,18 L.Ed. 764,73 U.S. 112 |
Parties | LEAGUE v. ATCHISON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
The statute of limitations of Texas, after making ten years a protection to one two enters without title, and five years a protection when the party has entered with claim under a deed on record, and has paid the taxes and made cultivation during that term, enacts by its fifteenth section as follows:1
With this act in force Atchison brought suit against League to recover a lot of ground in Galveston.
On the trial, it appeared that both parties claimed title under the Directors of the Galveston ity Company, from whom the title was deraigned, to one Hasbrook. The plaintiff asserted himself to be the owner of Hasbrook's title through a deed from him to one Curtis. The defendant denied the validity of this deed to Curtis, alleging it to be a forgery, and claimed under a levy and sale of the property under a judgment against Hasbrook posterior to the alleged sale of Hasbrook to Curtis. The validity of this deed was one of the issues to be tried, one however not involved in the case as here presented. The defendants pleaded the statute whose fifteenth section as to limitation of three years is above quoted. On this point the plaintiff's counsel requested the court to instruct the jury as follows:
'That, if the jury, under the instructions of the court, find a conveyance from Hasbrook and wife to Curtis to be valid, then the sheriff had no authority to make the levy, under the execution against Hasbrook, on the lot in question, or to make the deed to Atchison, and there is no such transfer of title from Hasbrook to Atchison as will sustain the plea of limitation.'
The court refused the instruction, and whether it had done so rightly or not was the point for review here.
The case was fully argued in behalf of the plaintiff in error by Messrs. C. Robinson and W. G. Hale, who relied on the fifteenth section above quoted, as clear of itself; citing in addition, however, by way of illustration, the statutes of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and other States, and decisions upon them, to show what possession was adverse.
Messrs. Green Adams, and W. P. Balinger, contra.
The only question involved in this case arises on the construction to be given to the 15th section of the statute of limitations of the State of Texas. It is somewhat peculiar in its terms, and is well suited to the policy of a new State desirous to encourage emigration, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. State ex rel. Moore
-
Morgan v. Pott
...... of the land as is claimed by mere color." [3 Washburn on. Real Property (6 Ed.), sec. 1987. See also League v. Atchison, 73 U.S. 112, 18 L.Ed. 764, and Osterman v. Baldwin, Ib. 168.] The hiatus in the Pascola. Company's chain of title defeated its ......
-
Beale's Heirs v. Johnson
...v. Kelsey (Tex. Civ. App.) 59 S. W. 633; Baldwin v. Root, 90 Tex. 547, 40 S. W. 3; Vera Mendi v. Hutchins, 48 Tex. 531; League v. Atchison, 6 Wall. 112, 18 L. Ed. 764; Thompson v. Cragg, 24 Tex. 598; Cole v. Grigsby, 89 Tex. 229, 35 S. W. 792; Cox v. Bray, 28 Tex. 247. The original petition......
-
Morgan v. Pott
...fatal as to so much of the land as is claimed by mere color." 3 Washburn on Real Property (6th Ed.) § 1987. See, also, League v. Atchison, 73 U. S. 112, 18 L. Ed. 764, and Osterman v. Baldwin, 73 U. S. 116, 18 L. Ed. The hiatus in the Pascola Company's chain of title defeated its adverse po......