St. Louis Cattle Co. v. Vaught

• Decision Date: 29 November 1892
• Citation: 20 S.W. 855
• Parties: ST. LOUIS CATTLE CO. v. VAUGHT.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

20 S.W. 855

ST. LOUIS CATTLE CO. v. VAUGHT.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

November 29, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Mitchell county; WILLIAM KENNEDY, Judge.

Trespass to try title by M. S. Vaught against the St. Louis Cattle Company. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Alexander & Campbell, for appellant. C. H. Earnest and Smallwood & Smith, for appellee.

TARLTON, C. J.

The appellee, Michael S. Vaught, recovered, in the district court of Mitchell county, in this action of trespass to try title, a judgment against the appellant for a section of land involved in this suit, and a further judgment in the sum of $78.95, the value of the use and occupancy of said land for two years prior to the institution of said suit. From this judgment the appellant prosecutes this appeal.

The defendant pleaded a disclaimer as to the title and possession of the survey sued for, and denied possession of it.

Conclusions of fact: (1) Plaintiff was and is the owner of the section of land sued for. (2) Since May 4, 1887, two years prior to the institution of this suit, the said tract of land has been within the inclosure of the St. Louis Cattle Company. (3) The inclosure of said cattle company is used by the same as a pasture, and the cattle of said company were permitted to graze upon the said survey in controversy, as well as upon any other portion of the land inclosed in their pasture; the outer boundaries of the tract sued for having never been fenced. (4) The rental value of the land in controversy for the two years prior to the institution of the suit is $78.95. (5) The pasture of the St. Louis Cattle Company consists of 75,000 or 100,000 acres of land, with a large number of cattle in the same. (6) Before the pasture was fenced by the company, the southern line thereof had been fenced by the Lucerne Cattle Company. A considerable portion of the eastern boundary thereof had also been fenced by the Lucerne Cattle Company, the fence so built being still owned by the Lucerne Company. (7) A portion of the western boundary of said pasture had been fenced by the Iowa Cattle Company, and was and is still the property of said Iowa Company. (8) The St. Louis Cattle Company used these fences, and assisted in keeping them in repair. The balance of the inclosure was fenced by said company in the spring of 1887, no part of said fence being upon the land sued for. (9) The St. Louis Cattle Company built and established gates every three miles around its pasture, and ingress and egress through said gates to and from the land sued for has never been denied to the plaintiff. (10) The St. Louis Cattle Company notified the agents of plaintiff that he could at any time take possession of his land, and protect and use the same, and that, if inclosed within its pasture, this was only so done that the company might use and enjoy...