Rand v. Cartwright

18 S.W. 794, 82 Tex. 399, 1891 Tex. LEXIS 1151
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 1, 1891
DocketNo. 2933.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 18 S.W. 794 (Rand v. Cartwright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rand v. Cartwright, 18 S.W. 794, 82 Tex. 399, 1891 Tex. LEXIS 1151 (Tex. 1891).

Opinion

MARR, Judge,

Section A.—Appellee Matthew Cartwright, as guardian of the estates of the minors Matthew Cartwright, Jr., Anna Cartwright, and America Cartwright, brought this suit in the District Court of Kaufman County, in the usual form of an action of trespass to try title, against E. F. Band, on the 31st day of October, 1889, to recover title and possession of a. certain tract of land containing 320 acres, and known as the Samuel E. Peel survey, in Kaufman County, patented to said Samuel E. Peel on the 24th day of June', 1852, claiming title to and possession of the same on 1st day of January, 1882, at which time it is alleged that defendant E. F. Band unlawfully entered into and upon said land and ejected plaintiffs therefrom, and unlawfully withholds from them the possession thereof, and claiming damages and rents.

The said Samuel E. Peel survey is described by its field notes as follows: Beginning at the south corner of the James E. Peel survey Ko. 127, of 197 acres of land, at post in prairie, from which a cottonwood bears north 47 west 350 varas; thence south 45 west 950 varas, a post in prairie from which a cluster of haekberries bears south 7 east about 600 varas; thence north 45 west, at 950 varas a creek, at 1680 varas another, at 1900^ varas a post, from which a native china bears south 47 east 40 varas; thence north 45 east, at 250 varas a creek, at 950 varas a post in prairie, from which an elm bears north 54 east 500 varas; thence south 45 east crossing creek 1900^ varas to place of beginning.

Appellant, defendant below, filed his original answer 28th day of May, 1889, and pleaded not guilty. May 31, 1890, appellant filed his amended original answer, and presented the following issues:

1. A plea of not guilty.

2. Setting up claim and ownership to 114 acres of land, alleged by him to be a part of the W. L. Wade survey, describing the same by metes and bounds, and setting up the three years statute of limitations.

3. Setting up statute of limitations of five years.

4. Improvements in good faith.

On the 4th day of June plaintiffs filed first supplemental petition, and replying to defendant’s plea of limitation, alleged that plaintiffs are minors, and were such at the time defendant purchased and took possession of said land. A jury not being demanded, the cause was tried by the court June 4, 1890, and judgment rendered for plaintiffs against defendant for a strip of land 120 varas wide and 950 varas long, adjudged to be a part of said Samuel E. Peel survey, and for costs.

The appellant presents only one assignment of error, which is as follows: “The court erred in making the call in the field notes of the *401 Samuel E. Peel survey for a lone elm bearing tree “500 varas distant control the course and distance from its well known west corner 950 varas distant, thereby locating the north corner of said survey 1078 varas from its west corner as evidenced by the native china tree, instead of 950 varas therefrom, as called for in the field notes.”

The strip of land above mentioned, and taken from the possession • of the defendant and awarded to the plaintiffs by the judgment below, amounts to about 204 acres, and to that extent increases the area of the Samuel E. Peel survey, if it be established by course and distance from its west corner as claimed by appellant. We insert some of the court’s conclusions of law and fact, viz.:

“2. The minor plaintiffs are the owners of the Samuel E. Peel survey of land, described in the plaintiff’s petition.
“3. The-defendant E. F. Band is the owner of a part of the W. L.
Wade survey, 320 acres of land, which lies contiguous to the said Samuel E. Peel survey.
“4. Under the evidence the court finds that Samuel E. Peel is not in conflict with any part of said W. L. Wade survey.
“5. The following map shows the relative positions of the above named surveys, as well as of the James E. Peel survey, and the land inclosed and claimed by the defendant is indicated by the dotted lines, viz.:

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

Related

Strong v. Sunray DX Oil Company
448 S.W.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Arnold v. Stanford
398 S.W.2d 835 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Adams v. Grogan-Cochran Lumber Co.
181 S.W.2d 582 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1944)
Ostrom v. Jackson
127 S.W.2d 987 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Anderson v. Schaefer
275 S.W. 300 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Daughtrey v. McCoy
135 S.W. 1060 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 S.W. 794, 82 Tex. 399, 1891 Tex. LEXIS 1151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rand-v-cartwright-tex-1891.