Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Tex. Civ. App. 437

25 S.W 975

Hodges v. Ross

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 14, 1894

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1894-02-14

<p>1. Description — Limitation. — u The entire survey, number 118, of 738 acres, Robert Wheally, in Kinney County, Texas,” is a sufficient description to allow the introduction of a deed; there is no uncertainty in it, and it puts the owner on notice that the party in possession was claiming under the deed.</p> <p>2. Possession of Part Extends to Entire Tract. — One in possession of land under a deed, cultivating, using, or enjoying the same, holds all the land comprehended within the boundaries of his deed, though not in actual possession of the entire tract, and it is not necessary that he should reside on any of it.</p> <p>3. Payment of Taxes. — See facts held sufficient to show payment of taxes.</p> <p>4. Cotenants — Limitations.—When parties have such an interest in the land as entitles either to maintain trespass to try title against any person entering upon it during the time of their respective ownership, limitations will run against them if they fail to protect such interest.</p> <p>5. New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence. — A motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence should state from whom the information as to such evidence was obtained, and be supported by the affidavit of the informant.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-02-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1938

7 state decisions

4018941900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

NEILL, Associate Justice.

¶2 The motion is overruled; but the judgment of the District Court is here reformed so that it shall not prejudice the right of the plaintiff in error, nor bar his right, if any he has, to sue for one-third interest in the land after the termination of the life-estate to such interest held by Mrs. Elizabeth Huling. This order shall not ba *442 construed to mean that the remainder after the termination of such life-estate is not affected by the facts upon which the statute of limitations was successfully maintained. That question is left open to be determined in such case as may be brought to recover such remainder in the estate.

Writ of error refused on April 30, 1894.

¶3 Motion overruled, and judgment reformed.

/6/texcivapp/437 · .json · Public domain