Schiele v. Kimball
| Decision Date | 16 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2492.) |
| Citation | 194 S.W. 944 |
| Parties | SCHIELE v. KIMBALL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Trespass to try title by Laverne F. Kimball against Louis Schiele. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to Court of Civil Appeals, where judgment was affirmed (150 S. W. 303), and defendant brings error. Cause dismissed.
Love & Channell, of Houston, for plaintiff in error. Hutcheson & Hutcheson, of Houston, for defendant in error.
The question of our jurisdiction of this case was considered in passing upon the application for writ of error. We overruled a motion to dismiss at that time, and, being of the view that we had jurisdiction, granted the writ. Upon a full investigation it is apparent that the case is one of boundary, of which the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals is final.
The action was in the form of trespass to try title to certain land, the plaintiff pleading title in fee simple and by limitation. The defendant answered by plea of not guilty and by pleas of limitation, and also pleaded over for the recovery of the land. While the suit had this form, the controversy in fact was over the true location of the boundary line between the adjoining tracts of the parties, and, if not located as the plaintiff contended, whether the defendant was not estopped to assert the contrary.
The plaintiff owned land upon the Moody survey, the defendant upon the Duckworth, two adjoining surveys in Harris County. The Duckworth is the older survey. The Moody survey lies south and west of it, its field notes calling for the south and west line of the Duckworth. The disputed line is the west boundary line of the Duckworth.
At the outset of the trial, the parties made an agreement which, in its effect, was that if the land in controversy was in the Moody survey, the plaintiff was entitled to it; and if in the Duckworth, the defendant was entitled to it, unless his claim was overcome by limitation or estoppel.
In the trial court a verdict for the plaintiff was directed, under the court's view that he had conclusively established his claim of title under five years limitation.
The Court of Civil Appeals found that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's contention that the west line of the Duckworth was 386 varas west of the line claimed by the plaintiff. This would make the land in suit a part of the Duckworth; and, according to its finding, rendered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Permian Oil Co. v. Smith
...over boundary suits, even though brought in form of trespass to try title. Wright v. Bell, 94 Tex. 577, 63 S.W. 623; Schiele v. Kimball, 113 Tex. 1, 194 S.W. 944; Cox v. Finks, 91 Tex. 318, 43 S.W. 1; v. Coleman County, 95 Tex. 445, 67 S.W. 1016. So, for approximately a hundred years the ju......
-
Hunt v. Heaton
...Plumb v. Stuessy, 617 S.W.2d 667 (Tex.1981); Standolind Oil & Gas Co. v. State, 136 Tex. 5, 133 S.W.2d 767 (1939); Schiele v. Kimball, 113 Tex. 1, 194 S.W. 944 (1917). In such an action the plaintiff is not required to establish superior title to the property in question in the manner requi......
-
Martin v. Amerman
...Plumb, we recognized that a boundary dispute may be tried by a statutory action of trespass to try title. Id. (citing Schiele v. Kimball, 113 Tex. 1, 194 S.W. 944 (1917)). In such a case, a recorded deed is sufficient to show an interest in the disputed property without having to prove a fo......
-
Smith v. Burroughs
...the old fence line, which pleading was sufficient to raise the question of boundary, absent a special exception thereto. Schiele v. Kimball, 113 Tex. 1, 194 S. W. 944; Cox v. Finks, 91 Tex. 318, 43 S. W. Nor is the proposition sustained that the evidence conclusively showed the old fence li......