Sadler v. Kirsch

Court of Appeals of Texas

Sadler v. Kirsch

59 S.W.2d 193, 1933 Tex. App. LEXIS 531

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 23, 1933

DocketNo. 4312.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 59 S.W.2d 193 (Sadler v. Kirsch) 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

Sadler v. Kirsch, 59 S.W.2d 193, 1933 Tex. App. LEXIS 531 (Tex. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

SELLERS, Justice.

Harvey Kirsch brought this suit in the district court of Cherokee county against Millard Sadler and others in trespass to try title, and also alleged title under the ten years’ statute of limitation (Rev. St. 1925, art. 5510). The defendants answered by plea of not guilty, and also pleaded title to the land involved under the five and ten years’ statutes of limitation. The case was tried before the court without the aid of a jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence the court found in favor of the plaintiff, Harvey Kirsch, on his plea of ten years’ limitation, and accordingly entered judgment in his favor for the land involved." To this judgment the defendants excepted and have duly prosecuted this appeal.

Appellants’ first proposition is that the appellee cannot recover on his plea of limitation since the evidence does not show that his title to the land involved ever passed out of the state of .Texas. We cannot agree with appellants’ contention. The evidence shows very clearly that the appellee was in possession of the land involved for more than ten years before this suit was filed, having it fenced, using and enjoying and claiming it as his own during all this time. Such possession alone carries with it the presumption that the state had parted with the title to some one and that the appellee had acquired that title. House v. Reavis, 89 Tex. 626, 35 S. W. 1063. This presumption placed the burden on appellants to show that the state had not parted with its title in order to defeat the case made by appellee, and this they have failed to do. Harmon et al. v. Landers (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 378.

Careful examination of the evidence convinces us that appellants’ second assignment of error must be overruled, the evidence, in our opinion, being sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of adverse possession of appellee to the land.

The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

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

SELLERS, Justice.

Harvey Kirsch brought this suit in the district court of Cherokee county against Millard Sadler and others in trespass to try title, and also alleged title under the ten years’ statute of limitation (Rev. St. 1925, art. 5510). The defendants answered by plea of not guilty, and also pleaded title to the land involved under the five and ten years’ statutes of limitation. The case was tried before the court without the aid of a jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence the court found in favor of the plaintiff, Harvey Kirsch, on his plea of ten years’ limitation, and accordingly entered judgment in his favor for the land involved." To this judgment the defendants excepted and have duly prosecuted this appeal.

Appellants’ first proposition is that the appellee cannot recover on his plea of limitation since the evidence does not show that his title to the land involved ever passed out of the state of .Texas. We cannot agree with appellants’ contention. The evidence shows very clearly that the appellee was in possession of the land involved for more than ten years before this suit was filed, having it fenced, using and enjoying and claiming it as his own during all this time. Such possession alone carries with it the presumption that the state had parted with the title to some one and that the appellee had acquired that title. House v. Reavis, 89 Tex. 626, 35 S. W. 1063. This presumption placed the burden on appellants to show that the state had not parted with its title in order to defeat the case made by appellee, and this they have failed to do. Harmon et al. v. Landers (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 378.

Careful examination of the evidence convinces us that appellants’ second assignment of error must be overruled, the evidence, in our opinion, being sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of adverse possession of appellee to the land.

The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 S.W.2d 193, 1933 Tex. App. LEXIS 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadler-v-kirsch-texapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack