Pacific Exp. Co. v. Dunn
| Decision Date | 15 May 1891 |
| Citation | 16 S.W. 792 |
| Parties | PACIFIC EXP. CO. v. DUNN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Mitchell county; WILLIAM KENNEDY, Judge.
Ball & Burney and McCormick & Spence, for appellant. Martin & Jennings and J. M. Moore, for appellee.
Appellee brought this action to recover damages for the destruction of a house and property therein by fire, which he alleges resulted from the negligence of an employe of appellant while engaged in the course of his employment in its business. In the course of the trial, appellee was permitted to prove his ownership of the house by his own testimony, and it is urged that such evidence was not admissible for that purpose. This evidence was to the effect that he owned the house and lot on which it stood, and was in possession of it at the time and before it was destroyed; that he built the house some four years before it was burned, on another lot, from which he removed it to the lot on which it stood, about three years before it was destroyed; that two rooms in the house were occupied by his tenants, two vacant, and another occupied by himself as an office. It was contended that appellee could not thus show his ownership, and that it was incumbent on him to show title by written muniment; or to show that he held the exclusive possession. The possession shown was certainly exclusive, within the meaning of the law, for the possession of his tenants was his possession, and no part of the premises was occupied by any person other than himself and his tenants. We do not understand that, in actions of this character, it is incumbent on a plaintiff to deraign title through writings from the sovereignty of the soil, or in some of the other methods in which title is acquired, but understand that an exclusive and peaceable possession of land furnishes prima facie evidence of ownership, which, if not rebutted, is sufficient to maintain such an action as this, or even ejectment or trespass to try title against a trespasser or mere intruder. Linard v. Crossland, 10 Tex. 462; Lea v. Hernandez, Id. 137; Wilson v. Palmer, 18 Tex. 595; Yates v. Yates, 76 N. C. 142; Smith v. Lorillard, 10 Johns. 339; Bledsoe v. Simms, 53 Mo. 305; Keith v. Keith, 104 Ill. 397; Barger v. Hobbs, 67 Ill. 592; Sedg. & W. Tr. Title Land, 717, and cases cited. The question which brought out the evidence as to possession may have been leading, and the broad assertion of ownership may have been but the assertion of an opinion, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farrow v. Sims, 15312
...support a recovery in a possessory action for disturbing peaceable possession and for damage by a naked trespasser. Pacific Expressway Co. v. Dunn, 81 Tex. 85, 16 S.W. 792; 41-A Tex.Jur. Furthermore under our holding in the first count, appellant did not take title to the property described......
-
Magerstadt v. Lambert
...89 Tex. 640, 36 S. W. 67; Parker v. Ft. Worth, etc., Ry., 71 Tex. 133, 8 S. W. 541; Duren v. Strong, 53 Tex. 379; Pacific Express Co. v. Dunn, 81 Tex. 86, 16 S. W. 792; Swan v. Busby (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S. W. 304; Gray v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 23 S. W. 3. The wife is jointly liable with......
-
Grays v. Harrison, 5610.
...facie evidence of title as against one who is not in possession but claims adversely against the person in possession. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Dunn, 81 Tex. 85, 16 S.W. 792; Edrington v. Butler et al., Tex.Civ.App., 33 S. W. 143, and Allen et al. v. Boggess et al., 94 Tex. 83, 58 S.W. 833. The ......
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Cusenberry
... ... Express Co. v. Dunn, 81 Tex. 85, 16 S. W. 792; Railway Co. v. Timmermann, 61 Tex. 660; Kolb v. Bankhead, 18 Tex. 228; ... ...