McCaslin v. Veasy

Court of Appeals of Texas

McCaslin v. Veasy

199 S.W. 1173, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 1172

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 20, 1917

DocketNo. 1882.

StatusPublished

This text of 199 S.W. 1173 (McCaslin v. Veasy) 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

McCaslin v. Veasy, 199 S.W. 1173, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 1172 (Tex. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above).

[1,2] Assuming that the judgment of the court was predicated on a finding that the statute of limitations of ten years had operated to bar a right he had had to recover the 15 or 20 acres of appellees, appellant insists that the finding was without support in the testimony. As the findings of the court were not reduced to writing, we do not know from the record whether the court made such a finding, and based his judgment on it, or not. But if he did, and if it should be conceded that the finding was not authorized by testimony, it would not therefore appear that the judgment was erroneous. That the court may have based his judgment on an untenable ground would not be a reason for setting it aside if it is sustainable on a tenable ground. Insurance Co. v. McCurdy, 183 S. W. 796; O’Fiel v. King, 23 S. W. 696; Walker v. Cole, 27 S. W. 882; League v. Rice Institute, 152 S. W. 1182; Railway Co. v. Purcell, 91 Tex. 585, 44 S. W. 1058; Estey v. Fisher, 44 S. W. 555; Avery v. Popper, 92 Tex. 337, 49 S. W. 219, 50 S. W. 122, 71 Am. St. Rep. 849; Warren v. Kohr, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 331, 64 S. W. 62. And clearly it is, for in no view of the case as made by the record was the court authorized to render judgment in appellant’s favor for the land in dispute. It did not appear that appellant ever had the title to the land. It was not shown that he and appellees claimed title from a common source; and the only evidence before the court of title in him was that furnished by a deed dated November 4, 1903, which passed to him the undivided interest one Miller claimed to own in the 307.6 acres. Greenlee v. Taylor, 79 Tex. 149, 14 S. W. 1056; Harris v. Kiber, 178 S. W. 673; Griffin v. Hay, 135 S. W. 248. In the Taylor Case the court said:

“The suit is trespass to try title, with plea of not guilty, and before boundary questions can be important plaintiff must show title, otherwise defendants will recover.”

The judgment is affirmed.

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

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above).

[1,2] Assuming that the judgment of the court was predicated on a finding that the statute of limitations of ten years had operated to bar a right he had had to recover the 15 or 20 acres of appellees, appellant insists that the finding was without support in the testimony. As the findings of the court were not reduced to writing, we do not know from the record whether the court made such a finding, and based his judgment on it, or not. But if he did, and if it should be conceded that the finding was not authorized by testimony, it would not therefore appear that the judgment was erroneous. That the court may have based his judgment on an untenable ground would not be a reason for setting it aside if it is sustainable on a tenable ground. Insurance Co. v. McCurdy, 183 S. W. 796; O’Fiel v. King, 23 S. W. 696; Walker v. Cole, 27 S. W. 882; League v. Rice Institute, 152 S. W. 1182; Railway Co. v. Purcell, 91 Tex. 585, 44 S. W. 1058; Estey v. Fisher, 44 S. W. 555; Avery v. Popper, 92 Tex. 337, 49 S. W. 219, 50 S. W. 122, 71 Am. St. Rep. 849; Warren v. Kohr, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 331, 64 S. W. 62. And clearly it is, for in no view of the case as made by the record was the court authorized to render judgment in appellant’s favor for the land in dispute. It did not appear that appellant ever had the title to the land. It was not shown that he and appellees claimed title from a common source; and the only evidence before the court of title in him was that furnished by a deed dated November 4, 1903, which passed to him the undivided interest one Miller claimed to own in the 307.6 acres. Greenlee v. Taylor, 79 Tex. 149, 14 S. W. 1056; Harris v. Kiber, 178 S. W. 673; Griffin v. Hay, 135 S. W. 248. In the Taylor Case the court said:

“The suit is trespass to try title, with plea of not guilty, and before boundary questions can be important plaintiff must show title, otherwise defendants will recover.”

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.W. 1173, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 1172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccaslin-v-veasy-texapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack