South Texas Development Co. v. Manning
Decision Date | 02 June 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 5499.) |
Citation | 177 S.W. 998 |
Parties | SOUTH TEXAS DEVELOPMENT CO. v. MANNING. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; J. Llewellyn, Judge.
Action by the South Texas Development Company against Walter Manning. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
John W. Lewis, of Houston, for appellant. C. W. Nugent, of Conroe, for appellee.
Appellant states the case thus:
"This was an action of trespass to try title, filed by the South Texas Development Company against Walter Manning for 384.3 acres of land, a part of the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company survey No. 15, in Montgomery county, Tex. Appellee, Walter Manning, answered, disclaiming as to all of said land sued for, except 160 acres out of said tract, which he claimed by statute of limitations of 10 years, and setting up by definite description the 160 acres claimed by him. On the trial, appellant showed a perfect record title to the entire 384.3-acre tract sued for. The court charged the jury that the uncontroverted evidence showed the appellant to have the legal title to all of the land described in its petition, and is entitled to recover of the appellee, unless such recovery is defeated by his plea of limitation. The case was tried with the aid of a jury, who returned a verdict for appellee for 160 acres of land, and judgment was entered accordingly for said appellee.
The period during which it is claimed Manning's limitation title matured began about September 6, 1902. It is admitted that one Ed Payne and Joe McDonald, at different times during the 10-year period, were living upon the premises, the difference of opinion being as to the capacity in which they were in possession. Appellee claims that McDonald got permission from his tenant, E. A. Smith, to stay in the house while he, McDonald, was cutting ties on this 160 acres and other lands. McDonald bought Manning's little crop of sweet potatoes at the time he went into possession of the house and premises in 1906. Appellee admits this, but claims that McDonald became his tenant through permission from Smith, whom he had placed in charge of the place. It is not denied that McDonald was working under authority of the record owner in cutting crossties.
Appellee testified, on the trial, substantially, to the following facts:
He says that he married in March, 1902, and that he went upon this land about the 6th of September of that year; that he went upon it on his own hook. He says that he went upon it with the intention of acquiring the title by 10 years' limitation; that he offered to give Ed Payne $25 for a quitclaim deed to the place if he and his father could show any substantial claim; that he would simply pay them for their rights, but that Payne did not claim to have any rights and he did not buy it. There were four or five acres under fence at that time, part of it grown up with bushes. There was a little box house on it in 1902, and he says he lived there continuously about five years, raising a crop in 1903, consisting of potatoes, corn, cotton, sorghum, etc., and in 1904 and 1905 he made a crop there. He says, further, that his father-in-law, Smith, as his agent and tenant, gave Joe McDonald permission to move into the house; that he cultivated the land himself that year, but was not living there. He says that it was later than June, 1907, when McDonald moved into the house, because he sold him his sweet potato crop growing around the house, but he does not remember how long he lived there, but thinks it was during the summer and fall of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ramirez v. Wood
...See McCall v. Grogan-Cochran Lumber Co., 143 Tex. 490, 186 S.W.2d 677, 678-679 (1945); South Texas Development Co. v. Manning, 177 S.W. 998 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1915, error ref'd); cf. Trinity River Authority v. Hughes, 504 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1974, writ ref'd n. r. ......
-
Furlow v. Kirby Lumber Co., 2265.
...Lmbr. Co. v. Allison (Tex. Com. App.) 276 S. W. 418; Evans v. Houston Oil Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 730; South Texas Development Co. v. Manning (Tex. Civ. App.) 177 S. W. 998 (writ refused); Haynes v. T. & N. O. R. Co., 51 Tex. Civ. App. 49, 111 S. W. 427 (writ refused); Sanders v. Tho......
-
Marion County v. Sparks, 3590.
...65 Tex. 605; Freedman v. Bonner, Tex.Civ.App., 40 S.W. 47; Combes v. Stringer, 106 Tex. 427, 167 S.W. 217; South Texas Development Co. v. Manning, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W. 998; Evans v. Houston Oil Co., Tex.Com.App., 231 S.W. 731; Houston Oil Co. v. Holland, Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 546; Lee v.......
-
Coleman v. Waddell
...Tex.Com.App., 231 S.W. 731; Haynes v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 51 Tex.Civ.App. 49, 111 S.W. 427, error refused; South Texas Development Co. v. Manning, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W. 998 error refused; Powell Lumber Co. v. Medley, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 520, error dismissed, judgment correct; Furlow......