Schleicher v. Runge

• Decision Date: 08 October 1896
• Citation: 37 S.W. 982
• Parties: SCHLEICHER et al. v. RUNGE et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

37 S.W. 982

SCHLEICHER et al. v. RUNGE et al.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

October 8, 1896.

Appeal from district court, De Witt county; S. F. Grimes, Judge.

Action of trespass to try title by Julia Runge and others against G. H. Schleicher and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Proctors and R. A. Pleasants, for appellants. Glass, Callender & Carsner, for appellees.

WILLIAMS, J.

This case was before us at a former term, on appeal from a judgment sustaining exceptions to plaintiffs' petition, on the ground that the cause of action asserted was stale, and was barred by limitation. In the opinion then delivered, we held that this ruling was erroneous, and that the petition did not show that the cause of action was thus barred. Runge v. Schleicher, 21 S. W. 423. The case was subsequently tried in the district court upon the facts, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, from which the defendants prosecute this appeal.

On the trial the following facts were shown in evidence: It was admitted that appellees were the heirs and devisees of Henry Runge, deceased, and that appellant G. H. Schleicher was the administrator and one of the heirs, and the other appellants were the remaining heirs, of Gustavus Schleicher, deceased. Charles Rossy testified for appellees that Schleicher sold him the three surveys described in appellees' petition in June, 1859, and that he paid Schleicher 40 cents per acre for the same; that Schleicher gave him an instrument of writing, evidencing his title to the land; and that he attaches said instrument to his deposition, and marks same "Exhibit A," as the original instrument given him by Schleicher; that the name of the grantee in the deed is blank; and that the consideration is not stated. And this witness testifies that this was done "as it was customary at the time this deed was made, because lands were being changed from hand to hand; and it was more convenient as the last holder could insert his own name, and have the deed recorded"; that in the same year that he bought the land from Schleicher he conveyed the land to Runge, and gave Runge this deed; that Schleicher gave him no other instrument whatever evidencing title to or concerning the land in question; that, when witness sold the land to Runge, he gave him Schleicher's deed, which was the only instrument he had; that his recollection is that Runge paid him something over 40 cents an acre; that he made no conveyance to Runge; that he had no understanding with Runge at the time of the sale to him, but the blanks were left unfilled, for the same reasons they were left unfilled when given to witness by Schleicher; that he never exercised any acts of ownership over the land after he sold to Runge; and that he did not know of any acts of ownership attempted to be exercised by Schleicher during his lifetime. In connection with Rossy's testimony, appellees produced in evidence the deed or instrument which was attached to Rossy's deposition, marked "Exhibit A." This instrument is in all respects a deed containing a description of the same land as in plaintiffs' petition set out, was signed by Schleicher on the 20th of June, 1859, and acknowledged June 21, 1859, before a notary public of Bexar county. This instrument is, however, without any expressed consideration; and no grantee is named or in any way designated therein, there being blank spaces where the consideration and...