Rountree v. Haynes

• Decision Date: 25 March 1903
• Parties: ROUNTREE v. HAYNES.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

73 S.W. 435

ROUNTREE v. HAYNES.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 25, 1903.

Error from District Court, Franklin County; J. M. Talbot, Judge.

Trespass to try title by W. B. Rountree against H. G. Haynes. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

C. S. Tod, S. D. Goswick, and Glass, Estis & King, for plaintiff in error.

FLY, J.

In his original petition, plaintiff in error's allegations were the ordinary ones in actions of trespass to try title; 170 acres of land out of the W. S. Keith survey, in Franklin county, being the land claimed. Defendant in error answered by general denial and plea of not guilty, and alleged specially that plaintiff had his fence several feet over the division line between the lands of the parties, and prayed the court to establish the line between them. In his first supplemental petition, filed before the filing of the amended answer, plaintiff pleaded as follows: "Now comes the plaintiff, and, leave of the court first had and obtained, files this, his first supplemental petition, and, in reply to defendant's answer, says that about the year 1857 one Amos Ury owned the east half of the said W. S. Keith survey, holding under conveyance to him by said Keith, and James Cowan owned the west half of said survey, holding under similar conveyance, and that during or about said year they, the said Keith, Cowan, and Ury, established, fixed, and marked the boundary line between them, which marked line is the same as the E—B line of plaintiff's land, described in his petition; that in 1858 James Cowan sold the land described in plaintiff's petition to W. C. Holbrook, and during or about the same year W. C. Holbrook took possession and cleared and fenced part of the same, placing his fence along and upon the E—B line of the land described in plaintiff's petition, and for over 20 years he had the peaceable, continuous, and adverse possession of same, cultivating, using, and enjoying the same under said deed from James Cowan, which was duly registered; that, whilst he was in possession of and owned said land, J. D. Roach, A. M. Roach, and E. B. Roach owned the land immediately east of and adjoining the said Holbrook's land, and they and Holbrook ran the line between the lands owned by the said Roaches and Holbrook, which said line was surveyed and agreed upon between said Roaches and Holbrook as the true division line between them; that said line is the same as now claimed as the E—B line of plaintiff's land, and has ever since been recognized and acted upon by the respective owners as the true division line between the land described in plaintiff's petition and the land east of and adjoining his land; that defendant holds and claims under conveyances from said A. M., J. D., and E. B. Roach, and is estopped from disputing the boundary line so agreed upon by his vendors, and the true division line between plaintiff and defendant is along the line occupied by Holbrook's east line of fence in 1858, and for several years thereafter, and the extension of said line north." The cause was tried by jury, and resulted in a verdict for defendant.

There is no statement of facts in the record, and the errors relied upon consist of contentions that the charge is not warranted by the pleadings, and that the judgment is not sustained by the verdict.

The...