Laucheimer v. Saunders

47 S.W. 543, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 392, 1898 Tex. App. LEXIS 264
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 12, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 47 S.W. 543 (Laucheimer v. Saunders) 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
Laucheimer v. Saunders, 47 S.W. 543, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 392, 1898 Tex. App. LEXIS 264 (Tex. Ct. App. 1898).

Opinion

KEY, Associate Justice.

This is an injunction suit brought by appellee to restrain appellants from causing an execution sale of a tract of land claimed by appellee as part of his homestead. After hearing the testimony, the court, trying the case without a jury, perpetuated the preliminary injunction, and the defendants have appealed.

The testimony is as follows: “The plaintiff, J. R. Saunders, being sworn, testified that he is the head of a family, said family consisting of himself, an unmarried daughter, and three minor sons; that in the'year 1859 he purchased the tract of land upon which his present residence is situated; that said tract of land consists of about nine acres; that said land is now platted on the town plat of Gatesville as block No. 61; that he has continued to reside on said block of land from the time of the purchase, in 1859, down to the present; that the improvements on said land when he bought it were similar in quantity to those that are on it now, the chief difference being in the quality of improvements, the present improvements being more valuable than those that were on the land when he bought it; but that when he bought this land, there were on it a residence, cribs, horse and cow lots, garden, etc., as it has now; that it was fenced as it is now, except that he has cut off by a cross fence one *393 residence lot, on which he had a house built, and which is occupied by-tenants who worked his farm; that he and the owner of the lot immediately east of him opened up an alley between them for their own convenience; that where he now lives was the nucleus of the residence portion of the village of Gatesville; that there were several residences near him. two or three west of him between him and the river, and three or four east of him between him and the public square of Gatesville; that said land is bounded and abutted on the south by what is now Main Street, but which was North Street or a road at the time of his purchase; that said land is bounded on the north by Stillhouse Branch, and that the north line of his fence is south of said Stillhouse Branch; that at the time and two or three years before he purchased this place he was a merchant in the town of Gatesville, doing business in a rented house; that he has ever since pursued the business of merchandising; that he is now president of the City National Bank of Gatesville; that in 1859 the population of Gatesville was some 300 or 400 souls.

“That in December, 1868, he purchased the 100 acres of land in controversy ; that when he bought this 100 acres it was not all cleared and in cultivation, but that he has since had the balance of it cleared and put in cultivation; that it is bounded on the west by the Leon Biver and on the south by Stillhouse Branch, which branch is now and has been since the incorporation of the town of Gatesville the corporation limit of said town in that direction. That the town of Gatesville was incorporated some time between the years 1870 and 1873; that said 100-acre farm is fenced off separate and apart from the block of land on which his residence is situated; that the south line of fence on said 100 acres is on the north bank of said Stillhouse Branch; that there is no house on said land now, but that at one time there was a tenant house on it; that at the time of purchasing said 100 acres he was doing a general merchandising business in business house of his own; said business house was on lot No. 5 in block 5, as platted on the plat of Gatesville, and that he has continued to do business in said house ever since he first occupied it until shortly before the levy herein; that he worked some on said farm in the years 1872 and 1873, but that his principal business at that time was merchandising; that he has always had said farm cultivated by tenants and hired labor; that he did not remember whether or not he favored the incorporation of the town of Gatesville at the time it was incorporated, but that he knew that he offered no objection or opposition to it; that he has always taken active interest in the affairs of the town and has served several terms as alderman of same; that he has owned other farms in Coryell County and that he received rents from them, just as he did from the 100 acres in controversy; that he never at any time lived on said 100 acres.

“The witness J. B. Saunders also testified, that two days before the levy of the writ herein his bank and he had become insolvent, and that all of his property save that used by him as his homestead had been surrendered by him to his creditors. He further stated that the two tracts of land containing nine acres and 100 acres respectively had been *394 claimed, occupied, and used as his homestead since they were respectively bought by him, and that he had never had any other homestead. He further testified that his land had never been cut up into lots or blocks, and that the mapping and platting of his nine acres as block 61 was done without his knowledge or consent.

“D. A. Hammack, being sworn, testified that Coryell County was organized and Gatesville made the county seat of said county in March, 1854; that at the time Gatesville was made the county seat of Coryell County, the Commissioners Court of said county had four streets surveyed and opened up, one, North Street, beginning at the public square and running west to the Leon River; another beginning at the public square and running east to the graveyard; another beginning at the pub-lice square and running south to the Leon River; another beginning at the public square and running north to Stillhouse Branch; that the survey of land on which the town of Gatesville is located originally belonged to one R. G. Grant; that said Grant cut up and sold to different parties near to and adjoining the Saunders nine-acre block, lots of one, two, three, etc., acres, as they wanted them, on which they built houses and made themselves homes, and that these houses were occupied in 1859, when J. R. Saunders bought said nine-acre block; that he is a surveyor by occupation, and that when the town of Gatesville was incorporated, some time between 1870 and 1873, he ran the north boundary line of' said town; that he began said line on the Leon River, beginning at the mouth of Stillhouse Branch, and running up said branch with its meanderings to a point just north of S. B. Raby’s residence, said point being just east of where the Cotton Belt Railway depot now stands. Witness was here shown a plat, which he identified as the plat of Gatesville, drafted by him for the city council of said town in about the year 1880; said plat showing Stillhouse Branch to be the north boundary line of Gatesville, and the Leon River to be the west boundary line of said town. Witness pointed out the J. R. Saunders residence lot as lot No. 61 on said plat, and stated that said lot is bounded on the south by Main Street, as shown on said plat, and stated further that Main Street on said plat was called North Street when Gatesville was first established and when Saunders bought said land; that said lot is bounded on the north by Stillhouse Branch. He further pointed out and located the 100-acre farm as adjoining said plat on the north.

“Witness testified further that he knew the 100-acre farm in controversy; that J. R. Saunders had used it as a homestead, but that he had never lived on it or worked it himself, but had always rented it; that said Saunders had lived on the lot which is now platted as lot No.

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

Related

Connelly v. Johnson
259 S.W. 634 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
McAlpin v. Hixon
1914 OK 540 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Dillard v. Cochran
153 S.W. 662 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 S.W. 543, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 392, 1898 Tex. App. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laucheimer-v-saunders-texapp-1898.