Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Cochran v. Kapner

Cochran v. Kapner

103 S.W. 469, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 342, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 91
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 8, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 103 S.W. 469 (Cochran v. Kapner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cochran v. Kapner, 103 S.W. 469, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 342, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 91 (Tex. Ct. App. 1907).

Opinion

NEILL, Associate Justice.

This suit was originally brought by Conrad Schwartz against J. B. Cochran, and W. J. Settegast in the form of an action of trespass to try title to the following described tract of land: “Beginning at the southeast corner of Koehler’s 14 45-100 acre tract put of the northeast corner of lot No. 5 of the west half of Luke Moore league, according to Power’s survey, which is in the northwest corner of lot No. 6 according to Trott survey and map. Thence north 70 degrees W. 694 44-100 feet along Koehler’s barbwire fence to his southwest corner. Thence north 20 degrees E. 132 feet parallel with sai<jL barbwire fence to the southeast corner of subdivision No. 1 of lot No. 5. Thence North 70 degrees W. 137 feet along the south line of said subdivision No. 1 to the northeast corner of subdivision No. 2 of lot No. 5. Thence south 20 degrees W. 2,003 feet along the east line of subdivisions two and three to the southeast corner of subdivision No. 3 on the south line of lot No. 5 of the west half of the Luke Moore league. Thence south 70 degrees W. 851 44-100 feet along said south line to the southeast corner of lot No. 5 of the west half of the Luke Moore league, according to Power’s survey. Thence north 20 degrees E. along Power’s line to. the place of beginning, containing 37 5-100 acres of land and being tract No. 4 in the subdivision of said lot 5 as made in partition *343 in suit of Thacker v. Thacker, as per map on page 482, volume 8, of the minutes of the Eleventh District Court of Harris County, Texas.”

The defendants pleaded not guilty, and, specially, that they “are the owners of 29% acres out of lot Ho. 6 of the subdivision of the west half of Luke Moore league, made by Henry Trott, a plat of which is recorded in book C., page 276, record of deeds for Harris County. Beginning at Koehler’s southwest corner on the west line of said lot Ho. 6, Trott survey. Thence south 70 degrees E. along Koehler’s south line 250 varas to a stake. Thence south 20 degrees W. 656 varas to the south line of lot Ho. 6. Thence north 70 degrees W. along the south line of said lot, 6,250 varas to its southwest corner. Thence north 20 degrees E. 656 varas to the place of beginning. Defendants further say that said 29% acres lie in lot Ho. 6 of the west half of Luke Moore league according to the Henry Trott survey, and not in lot Ho. 5.” They also disclaimed all the land sued for except the 29% acres above described.

Pending the suit Schwartz sold the land to I. Kapner, who made himself party plaintiff and the suit was prosecuted in his name. The case was tried before a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, Kapner, for the 29% acres described in defendants’ answer, whereupon judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the 37 5-100 acres sued for, which fixed and established the boundary lines thereof in accordance with the field notes set out in plaintiff’s petition. '

From this judgment the defendants have appealed, and insist on the following assignment of error: “The court erred in overruling defendants’ motion for new trial on the first ground set forth therein, towit: Because the verdict and judgment was wholly against the evidence and was unsupported thereby in this: The jury found by its verdict that the 29% acres in controversy is located in lot Ho. 5. The plaintiff and defendants entered into the following agreement: Tt is agreed between plaintiff and defendants that plaintiff has a regular chain of title to the land described in his petition, provided it is located in lot Ho. 5 of the west half of Luke Moore league, and that defendants have a regular chain of title to the 29% acres claimed by them in their first amended original answer, if it is in lot Ho. 6. Both claiming according to the plat recorded in book O., page 276. This agreement has no effect on limitation and! applies only to record title.’ The evidence conclusively shows that the 29% acres in controversy is located in lot Ho. 6, according to the Trott survey and plat referred to in said agreement.”

The agreement as copied in the assignment was made between the parties upon the trial. Below is a copy of the plat referred to in the agreement as it appears from the record.

*344

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cox v. Elerson
437 S.W.2d 312 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Mid-Pacific Dress Manufacturing Co. v. Cadinha
36 Haw. 732 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1944)
Cunningham v. Settegast
24 S.W.2d 520 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Bass v. McCord
178 S.W. 998 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Clifford
148 S.W. 1163 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Francis v. Patterson
143 S.W. 678 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 S.W. 469, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 342, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-kapner-texapp-1907.