Mexia v. Oliver, 182
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BLATCHFORD |
| Citation | 13 S.Ct. 754,148 U.S. 664,37 L.Ed. 602 |
| Parties | MEXIA et al. v. OLIVER |
| Docket Number | No. 182,182 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1893 |
v.
OLIVER.
A. H. Evans and W. S. Fleppin, for plaintiffs in error.
S. L. Samuels, for defendant in error.
Page 665
Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action at law, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Texas by Sarah R. Mexia and her husband, Enrique A. Mexia, citizens of Mexico, against T. J. Oliver, a citizen of Texas, for the possession of a piece of land. The 'first amended original petition' in the suit, filed November 30, 1888, is indorsed with a notice to the defendant that the action is brought as well to try title as for damages. The petition states that on January 1, 1878, the plaintiffs were seised and possessed, in fee, in right of said Sarah R. Mexia, of the following described tract of land, situated in Limestone county, Tex., being some 4,000 acres, more or less, out of 11 leagues of the land granted originally to Pedro Varella, 'beginning at a stake and mound on the eastern boundary of the Pedro Varella 11-league grant, 2,253 varas south, 45x east, from the northeast corner of said 11-league grant, said stake and mound being also the southeast corner of a 6,000-acre tract in the name of Jose M. Cabellero out of said 11-league grant, as the same was originally surveyed and established in June, 1855, by G. H. Cunningham, surveyor, at the instance of E. A. Mexia, agent for J. M. Cabellero and plaintiffs' vendors; thence south, 45x west, with the south boundary line of said 6,000-acre tract, * * * (according to a block of surveys made by G. H. Cunningham in 1856 in sectionizing and subdividing said 11-league grant, and set apart to plaintiff Sarah R. Mexia by deed of partition between Adelaide M. Hammekin, George L. Hammekin, Sarah R. Mexia, and E. A. Mexia, dated March 30, 1874;)' thence proceeding with the boundary around said land to the place of beginning,—'said boundaries including sections Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and a part of section No. 6, of the subdivision and partition of the said Pedro Varella 11-league grant, as shown on the records of the said Limestone county.' The petition sets forth, also, that on February 11, 1850, 'Adelaide M. Hammekin, joined by her husband, George L. Hammekin, being at that time the owners of said 11-league grant, made, executed, and delivered to one Jose M. Cabellero a conveyance for 6,000
Page 666
acres of said 11-league grant, out of the northeast corner of same, before any actual survey was made of said 6,000-acre tract, and that the same was never actually surveyed on the ground until the month of June, 1855, at which time said 6,000-acre tract was actually surveyed on the ground, and cut off from said 11-league grant, and the south or southwest boundary line thereof was well established on the ground in accordance with the field notes as hereinbefore set forth, and the same has ever since been held and regarded and acquiesced in as the south boundary of said 6,000-acre tract, and as the division line between the same and the remainder of said 11-league grant on the south and west thereof, and from that time to the present said line and survey has been acquiesced in by the adjacent owners of the land north and south of said line;' that said survey was made, and said line thus established, by G. H. Cunningham, then surveyor of the land district in which said land was situated, and this was done by request and authority of said J. M. Cabellero and the said Hammekins, and said survey and lines were afterwards ratified, and ever since acquiesced in, by them and their vendees; that such title as the defendant claims under is derived from Cabellero under said conveyance for 6,000 acres; that the defendant will claim and insist in this cause that the south boundary line of said 6,000-acre tract, in the name of Cabellero, should be at a point about 277 varas further south than as heretofore established, and as claimed by the plaintiffs; that on January 1, 1878, the defendant illegally entered on the land, and ejected the plaintiffs therefrom, to their damage in the sum of $10,000; and that the land claimed is of the value of $20,000. The petition prays judgment for the land, damages, and costs, for a writ of possession, and for other relief.
The defendant filed a 'first amended original answer' on April 17, 1889, by which he demurred to the plaintiffs' first amended original petition as insufficient in law, denied all the allegations of the petition, pleaded not guilty, and alleged that he had been in quiet, peaceable, continuous, and adverse possession for more than three years before the filing of the suit, of so much of the land described in the petition as was
Page 667
included within the boundaries following, to wit: 'In Limestone county, about 6 miles above the town of Springfield, on the northern or left of the river Navasota, being a part of the 11-league grant by the states of Coahuila and Texas to Pedro Varella, and commencing on the left bank of the eastern (or northern) branch of the Navasota at the point where the original line of said 11-league grant, from the second to the third corners, crossed the said creek; thence N., 45x E., following the original line of said 11-league grant, to the original 3rd corner; thence S., 45x E., two thousand five hundred and thirty (2,530) varas, following the original line of the said 11-league grant; thence S., 45x W., being a line parallel with the first line of this survey to the left bank of the Navasota; thence up said river to the beginning.' That, as to all not included in said boundaries, he did not set up any claim. That he pleaded the three-years and the five-years statutes of limitation. That he, and those whose estate he had in the lands sued for, had adverse possession of the land described in his plea of three years' limitation, for one year next before the commencement of the suit, claiming the land in good faith. That he and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co., 2,354.
...110 U.S. 47, 50, 3 Sup.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Railroad Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 103, 7 Sup.Ct. 118, 30 L.Ed. 299; Mexia v. Oliver, 148 U.S. 664, 673, 13 Sup.Ct. 754, 37 L.Ed. 602; Railroad Co. v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334, 337, 15 Sup.Ct. 830, 39 L.Ed. 1006; Railroad Co. v. McClurg, 8 C.C.A......
-
Cook v. Foley, 2,224.
...of prejudice arises which cannot be disregarded unless the record affirmatively discloses the error was not prejudicial (Mexia v. Oliver, 148 U.S. 664, 13 Sup.Ct. 754, 37 L.Ed. 602; Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. O'Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 7 Sup.Ct. 172, 30 L.Ed. 299), yet it is equally as wel......
-
The Rock Springs National Bank v. Luman
...unless it appears beyond doubt that the rights of the complaining party have not been prejudiced thereby. (Mexia v. Oliver, 13 S. C., 454; 148 U.S. 664; Yankton Co. v. Rosstenstcher, 1 Dak., 125; State v. Nolan, 48 Kan. 723.) Same principle applies to erroneous rejection of testimony. (Crav......
-
Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co. v. Holloway, 1,625.
...110 U.S. 47, 50, 3 Sup.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Railroad Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 103, 7 Sup.Ct. 118, 172, 30 L.Ed. 299; Mexia v. Oliver, 148 U.S. 664, 673, 13 Sup.Ct. 754, 37 L.Ed. 602; Railroad Co. v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334, 337, 15 Sup.Ct. 830, 39 L.Ed. 1006; Peck v. Heurich, 167 U.S. 6......
-
Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co., 2,354.
...110 U.S. 47, 50, 3 Sup.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Railroad Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 103, 7 Sup.Ct. 118, 30 L.Ed. 299; Mexia v. Oliver, 148 U.S. 664, 673, 13 Sup.Ct. 754, 37 L.Ed. 602; Railroad Co. v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334, 337, 15 Sup.Ct. 830, 39 L.Ed. 1006; Railroad Co. v. McClurg, 8 C.C.A......
-
Cook v. Foley, 2,224.
...of prejudice arises which cannot be disregarded unless the record affirmatively discloses the error was not prejudicial (Mexia v. Oliver, 148 U.S. 664, 13 Sup.Ct. 754, 37 L.Ed. 602; Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. O'Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 7 Sup.Ct. 172, 30 L.Ed. 299), yet it is equally as wel......
-
The Rock Springs National Bank v. Luman
...unless it appears beyond doubt that the rights of the complaining party have not been prejudiced thereby. (Mexia v. Oliver, 13 S. C., 454; 148 U.S. 664; Yankton Co. v. Rosstenstcher, 1 Dak., 125; State v. Nolan, 48 Kan. 723.) Same principle applies to erroneous rejection of testimony. (Crav......
-
Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co. v. Holloway, 1,625.
...110 U.S. 47, 50, 3 Sup.Ct. 471, 28 L.Ed. 62; Railroad Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 103, 7 Sup.Ct. 118, 172, 30 L.Ed. 299; Mexia v. Oliver, 148 U.S. 664, 673, 13 Sup.Ct. 754, 37 L.Ed. 602; Railroad Co. v. O'Reilly, 158 U.S. 334, 337, 15 Sup.Ct. 830, 39 L.Ed. 1006; Peck v. Heurich, 167 U.S. 6......