Overstreet v. Houston Oil Co.
Decision Date | 02 November 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 2230.,2230. |
Citation | 64 S.W.2d 354 |
Parties | OVERSTREET et al. v. HOUSTON OIL CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; S. A. McCall, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. M. S. Overstreet and others against the Houston Oil Company and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
O. S. Parker, of Beaumont, Jas. F. Parker, of Kountze, and J. L. Manry and R. H. Jones, both of Livingston, for appellants.
Williams, Lee, Hill, Sears & Kennerly, of Houston, for appellees.
This suit is in trespass to try title, and involves 160 acres of land out of I. & G. N. section No. 36 in Polk county, Tex. Appellants, as plaintiffs, filed this suit in the district court of Polk county against appellees, as defendants, claiming title to the land involved under the statute of limitations of ten years. For convenience we will designate the parties as in the trial court.
Plaintiff Mrs. M. S. Overstreet is the surviving widow, and the other plaintiffs are the surviving children and heirs, of Sam Overstreet, deceased, upon whose possession and use of the land they rely to establish their limitation title. Defendants are the record owners of the land.
The trial was to a jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence the court, on motion of the defendants, instructed a verdict in their favor, and judgment was entered thereon, from which the plaintiffs have prosecuted this appeal.
There is no material conflict in the evidence. The claimed limitation period began in 1893, when Sam Overstreet took possession of, and began cultivating, a small field of about 3 to 5 acres on the land in controversy. The testimony is to the effect that Overstreet continued to cultivate the field continuously until about 1904, when he abandoned it, a period of twelve years. The evidence is sufficient, we think, to raise an issue of fact for the jury on the question of limitation, unless the introduction in evidence by defendants of a lease contract covering I. & G. N. section No. 36, executed March 16, 1880, by D. S. D. McNeely, from whom Sam Overstreet acquired his possession, to John S. Kennedy et al., under whom the defendants deraigned their title, had the effect, as a matter of law, of operating an estoppel of plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession and limitation.
The facts pertaining to this question are substantially as follows: I. & G. N. section No. 36, of which the land involved is a part, was patented to I. & G. N. Railway Company March 9, 1878, and the railroad company, by deed dated March 10, 1879, conveyed it to John S. Kennedy, Samuel Thorne, and Walter Phelps. Previously, in 1874, D. S. D. McNeely had settled on an adjoining tract of state land, which was later patented to him, and is referred to in the testimony as the McNeely survey. In 1874, after establishing his home on his own survey, McNeely opened a small field of about 12 acres on the land in controversy, and began cultivating it. He cultivated this field continuously until 1892, when he moved to Lamar county, Tex. The year following McNeely's removal, the land was cultivated by him by a tenant, Early Williford, for one year, and in 1893 McNeely sold his own survey to Sam Overstreet, and, according to the testimony of plaintiffs' witnesses, McNeely at the same time sold his claim, or improvements, on the land in controversy to Overstreet, who took over the possession of the field from the tenant Williford, and thereafter cultivated it continuously each year until about 1904, when he abandoned it. It appears that the possession and cultivation of the field was continuous from the time D. S. D. McNeely began it, about 1874, until it was abandoned in 1904 by Sam Overstreet. About 1884 E. S. Holland, a stepson of D. S. D. McNeely, and who testified as a witness for defendants in this case, cleared up and began cultivating a small field of 4 or 5 acres adjoining that of his stepfather on the land in controversy. He later turned that field over to McNeely, who seems to have cultivated it, along with the other field, until he surrendered his possession to Overstreet in 1893. In the meantime, E. S. Holland acquired another field on I. & G. N. section No. 36 from B. E. Williford in the late 1880's, and cultivated it until about 1902.
Under date of March 16, 1880, D. S. D. McNeely executed a lease contract in favor of Kennedy, Thorne, and Phelps covering I. & G. N. section No. 36. Appellees contend that the execution of this lease by McNeely created the relation of landlord and tenant between him and those under whom defendants claim, and had the effect of estopping, not only McNeely, but also Sam Overstreet, who succeeded to his possession, from establishing title by limitation, since neither a tenant nor one taking possession under him can dispute the landlord's title. Since the effect of the lease is the controlling question in this case, we will set it out in full. The lease is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lorino v. Crawford Packing Co.
...Loustalott, Tex. Com.App., 53 S.W.2d 1012; Richardson v. Houston Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 176 S.W. 628, writ refused; Overstreet v. Houston Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 354, writ refused; 27 Tex.Jur. p. 71, § 20, id. p. 76, § 23; 35 C.J. p. 1224, § 565. The rule applies to and is binding ......
-
Whitfield v. Gay
...with reference to the kind and amount of rent to be paid. Drinkard v. Anderton, Tex.Civ.App., 280 S.W. 1076; Overstreet v. Houston Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 354; 27 Tex.Jur. 321. If Whitfield was in possession of the oat field after the commencement of Gay's lease, it was for a perio......
-
Achille v. Baird
...1955, when this suit was filed. The fact that appellants did not know of the tenancy relationship is immaterial. Overstreet v. Houston Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 354, writ ref.; Houk v. Kirby Petroleum Co., supra. We find no evidence in the record showing notice to appellees of any re......
-
Ballingall v. Brown, 15087
...of such repudiation of the owner's title and the commencement of the assertion of an adverse claim to the land. Overstreet v. Houston Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 354, writ ref.; Doherty v. Jensen, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W.2d 77, affirmed on this point by the Supreme Court in 143 Tex. 64, ......