Sanders v. Cauley

• Decision Date: 07 November 1908
• Citation: 113 S.W. 560
• Parties: SANDERS et al. v. CAULEY et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

113 S.W. 560

SANDERS et al. v. CAULEY et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

November 7, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; O. L. Lockett, Judge.

Suit by Dud Sanders and others against Jim Cauley and others. Judgment for defendants, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Davis & Davis, for appellants. Poindexter & Padelford and J. M. Moore, for appellees.

TALBOT, J.

This suit was instituted by appellants to enjoin appellees from removing a house from land alleged to be owned by appellants. A temporary writ of injunction was granted, and upon motion of appellees was, on the 12th day of September, 1908, dissolved. From this judgment appellants have appealed.

The grounds of the motion are: (1) That "the bill or petition is void of equity, and shows no ground for the relief sought, for the reasons appearing in defendants' answer, herewith filed and here referred to and made a part hereof"; (2) that "all the material allegations contained in plaintiffs' petition are denied and traversed by defendants in their sworn answer, herewith filed and made a part hereof." In support of and against the motion to dissolve, in addition to the sworn pleadings, numerous affidavits were filed by the respective parties, and from these affidavits and pleadings the following facts may be adduced: About 30 years prior to the institution of this suit O. P. Arnold gave and dedicated five acres of land, situated in the Hopewell public school community or district in Johnson county, Tex., to be used for school, religious, and cemetery purposes. No deed was ever made conveying said land, but shortly after Arnold donated the land for said purposes the resident citizens of said community, by voluntary contributions and subscription, erected thereon a house 24×18 feet, which was thereafter used for school purposes, and sometimes church purposes, until some time during the year 1907. For 25 years or more before the institution of this suit the said house was used for school purposes, and controlled by the trustees of the said Hopewell public school district, and was known and recognized during that time as public school property of said district. For said number of years the said O. P. Arnold, who died before this suit was brought, set up no claim to said property, but acquiesced in the use being made of it, and recognized it at all times as public school property, and repeatedly offered to convey it to the school trustees, as such property, if they would prepare and present to him a deed to that effect. During the year 1907 the boundaries of the said public school district were extended, and the school patrons of said district thereafter met in a mass meeting, and by a majority vote agreed to move said schoolhouse off the said school and cemetery lot donated by O. P. Arnold to a more desirable point to them in said school district, the plaintiffs voting with the minority to keep said house on said school and cemetery lot. It is alleged by appellees, and proof in support thereof by affidavits was introduced by them, to the effect that, by the action thus taken at the mass meeting of the patrons a controversy arose about the moving of said schoolhouse, and that by common consent it was agreed that said house should remain where it was during the year 1907, and until new school trustees were elected; that thereafter the plaintiffs, appellants in this court, or a portion of them, of their own motion, and in violation of the agreement that said schoolhouse should remain on the school and cemetery tract of land, moved said house across the line of said five acres and onto the small piece of land described in plaintiffs' petition, containing only about one-fourth of an acre.

It is alleged by plaintiffs, in a supplemental petition, and evidence, by affidavits in support thereof, was offered, that the house in question and the five acres of land upon which it was originally built was not built for and dedicated to public school purposes, and was not turned over to the trustees of said public school district to be controlled by them; but that said land was dedicated to cemetery purposes, and that the house in question was built, by public donations and subscriptions, to be used for holding religious services in, and burial services, and to teach public or private school in, as the community might desire. It is conceded by plaintiffs in their said pleading, and in argument, however, that said house had been used for school purposes by the school district, as well as for the other purposes mentioned, since it was built, about 25 years, and that, notwithstanding the trustees of said district did not have the exclusive control of said house, yet they did have the right to have the public school of said district taught therein. Plaintiffs do not deny, but admit, as we understand, that they removed said house from the five-acre tract of land, and placed it on the land now claimed by them; but they alleged, and offered evidence in support of such allegations, that they had not agreed that the house should remain on said five-acre tract; that they obtained the consent of two of the trustees of said school district, and the consent of three of...