West Lumber Co. v. Sanders
Decision Date | 22 November 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 604.) |
Citation | 225 S.W. 828 |
Parties | WEST LUMBER CO. v. SANDERS.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; J. L. Manry, Judge.
Action by the West Lumber Company against Pete Sanders and others. From judgment in favor of the named defendant, the plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Feagin, German & Feagin, of Livingston, for appellant.
Campbell & Murphy, of Livingston, for appellee.
The appellant, West Lumber Company, in its brief, makes the following statement, showing the nature and result of this suit below, the correctness of which is acquiesced in by the appellee, Sanders:
The case was submitted to the court as an agreed case under the statute, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant Pete Sanders for the 111 acres of land in controversy, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The agreed statement of facts upon which the case was tried is as follows:
Third. That on the 18th day of May, 1900, J. W. Kent, who was at said time residing on and cultivating about 13 acres on the L. T. Hampton league, the same being a portion of the 111 acres of land described in plaintiff's pleadings, on said date executed in favor of Camilla G. Davis, as independent executrix and legatee under the will of George W. Davis, the following tenancy contract, to wit: Which acknowledgment of tenancy was never filed for record. That the said J. W. Kent owned the house situated on said land and the rails used to inclose the field that he so cultivated, but did not assert or claim any interest in said land. That he continued to reside thereon until the early part of July, 1900, at which time the said J. W. Kent moved off said premises leaving the same vacant.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirby Petroleum Co. v. Houk
...tenant and lessee, and is equally estopped to deny that the possession so acquired is that of the landlord. In West Lumber Co. v. Sanders (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S. W. 828, it was held that the possession of a tenant at will, or those holding under or through him, is not adverse to the owner, ......
-
Keels v. Keels
...the secret intention of the claimant cannot satisfy either the requirement of adversity or notice thereof to the true owner. West Lumber Co. v. Sanders, 225 S.W. 828 (Tex.Civ.App., 1920, err. It is our view further that the mere recording of a deed to a claimant who initially entered into p......
-
Galindo v. Alexander
...into a hostile use. Robinson v. Smith, 133 Tex. 378, 128 S.W.2d 27; Brown v. Bickford, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 763; West Lumber Co. v. Sanders, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W. 828; 2 C.J.S., Adverse Possession, § 87b(3)(a). But the possession in this case was not permissive in its inception. The re......
-
Robinson v. Smith
...as tenant but in another capacity. The facts as to the nature of the occupancy are very similar to the facts in West Lumber Company v. Sanders, Tex. Civ.App., 225 S.W. 828, in which application for writ of error was refused. In that case the land owned by West Lumber Company was in the poss......