Voight v. Mackle
| Decision Date | 29 May 1888 |
| Citation | 8 S.W. 623 |
| Parties | VOIGHT <I>et al.</I> v. MACKLE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Dyer Moore, for appellants. G. W. Jones and Garwood & Batts, for appellee.
This suit is an action of trespass to try title, brought by appellee against appellant A. E. Voight. By leave of the court, the other appellant, Max Voight, made himself a party defendant to the action. The conclusions of fact found by the court show that the land in controversy was conveyed to appellee in 1864, and that his deed was duly registered at the time of its delivery; that in 1874 he conveyed the land by deed to one Henry Mackle, his nephew; and that the consideration recited in the conveyance was $500. Henry Mackle was living with his uncle at the time the latter conveyed the land to him, and they continued to live on the land together for about five years thereafter, at the end of which time the nephew went away. There was testimony tending to show that the deed was made to the nephew in consideration of services rendered by him to his uncle; while, on the other hand, there was evidence going to establish that it was executed merely for the purpose of defrauding the grantor's creditors. The findings of the court do not determine the question raised by this conflict of testimony, but we do not deem the omission material. In either event, Henry Mackle acquired by the deed a perfect title as against appellee. After the nephew left, he demanded rent of his uncle, but it was not paid. He testified that the uncle was to pay the taxes. After his departure, the uncle remained in possession of the land, using and cultivating it, and paying all taxes for the period of five years. In 1886, Henry Mackle conveyed the land to appellants. Under this state of facts, the court found, among other conclusions, as a matter of law, that appellee, by remaining in exclusive possession of the land, using and cultivating and paying taxes, under the duly-registered deed made to him, in 1864, had acquired title by the statute of limitations of five years, and gave judgment for him accordingly. In this we think the court erred. In Harris v. Hardeman, 27 Tex. 248, it is said, and perhaps authoritatively decided, that, when the ancestor had conveyed the land in his life-time, his heirs, upon regaining possession, had no title, and could not set up the statute of limitations either of three or five years under the grant to him. The same principle is announced in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardwicke v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 1482.
...are the following which imply such necessity: Hess & Skinner Engineering Co. v. Turney, 109 Tex. 208, 203 S.W. 593; Voight v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78, 8 S. W. 623; Temple Hill Development Co. v. Lindholm (Tex.Com.App.) 231 S.W. 321; Reed v. Murphy (Tex.Civ.App.) 276 S.W. 951; Edwards v. Youngblo......
-
Supreme Ruling of Fraternal Mystic Circle v. Ericson
...In such case it is not necessary that exceptions shall be taken to the findings of fact in order to assign error thereon. Voight v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 81, 8 S. W. 623; Tudor v. Hodges, 71 Tex. 395, 9 S. W. 443; Connellee v. Roberts, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 23 S. W. 189; Wilkins v. Burns, 25 S. W......
-
Gulf Production Co. v. Palmer
...a bar to a title by limitation based on that deed as if he had voluntarily conveyed it. Fisk v. Miller, 20 Tex. 579; Voight v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78, 8 S. W. 623; Doom v. Taylor, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 251, 79 S. W. 1088; Daugherty v. Yates, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 646, 35 S. W. 939; Smith v. Bunch, 31 T......
-
Arlington Heights Realty Co. v. Citizens' Ry. & Light Co.
...filing specific exceptions thereto at any time. R. S. 1911, art. 1991; Temple et al. v. Watkins Land Co., 81 S. W. 1188; Voight v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78, 8 S. W. 623; Smith v. Abadie, 67 S. W. 1077; Brenton & McKay v. Peck et al., 39 Tex. Civ. App. 224, 87 S. W. The question is further raised ......