Robinson v. Randell

Court of Appeals of Texas

Robinson v. Randell

211 S.W. 625, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 1426

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 29, 1918

DocketNo. 2027.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 211 S.W. 625 (Robinson v. Randell) 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

Robinson v. Randell, 211 S.W. 625, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 1426 (Tex. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

[1,2] The bond for title from Neathery and wife to Margaret Stewart not reciting any consideration, and the payment of a valuable consideration not being proved, it was determined on a former appeal (146 S. W. 717, 172 *626 S. W. 735) that, as against the appellee, such bond may not be regarded as evidence of any title in Margaret Stewart. We adhere to that ruling. And the vital question of fact arises as to whether, in the facts, prior possession of the 160-acre tract by L. B. Robinson made such a prima facie case as to legally warrant a recovery by the plaintiff, P. M. Robinson, heir of E. B. Robinson, of the 26-acre tract in suit against the defendant. It is believed that the legal effect of the facts is to entitle the plaintiff to recover. Watkins v. Smith, 91 Tex. 589, 45 S. W. 560; Boyd v. Miller, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 165, 54 S. W. 411; Buie v. Penn, 172 S. W. 547; Keys v. Mason, 44 Tex. 140.

This ruling necessitates reversing the judgment and here now rendering judgment in favor of the appellant for the land sued for and costs of the trial court and of this appeal.

Reversed and rendered.

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

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

[1,2] The bond for title from Neathery and wife to Margaret Stewart not reciting any consideration, and the payment of a valuable consideration not being proved, it was determined on a former appeal (146 S. W. 717, 172 *626 S. W. 735) that, as against the appellee, such bond may not be regarded as evidence of any title in Margaret Stewart. We adhere to that ruling. And the vital question of fact arises as to whether, in the facts, prior possession of the 160-acre tract by L. B. Robinson made such a prima facie case as to legally warrant a recovery by the plaintiff, P. M. Robinson, heir of E. B. Robinson, of the 26-acre tract in suit against the defendant. It is believed that the legal effect of the facts is to entitle the plaintiff to recover. Watkins v. Smith, 91 Tex. 589, 45 S. W. 560; Boyd v. Miller, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 165, 54 S. W. 411; Buie v. Penn, 172 S. W. 547; Keys v. Mason, 44 Tex. 140.

This ruling necessitates reversing the judgment and here now rendering judgment in favor of the appellant for the land sued for and costs of the trial court and of this appeal.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.W. 625, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 1426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-randell-texapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack