Thompson v. Richardson

Court of Appeals of Texas

Thompson v. Richardson

186 S.W. 275, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 613

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 18, 1916

DocketNo. 1645.

StatusPublished

This text of 186 S.W. 275 (Thompson v. Richardson) 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

Thompson v. Richardson, 186 S.W. 275, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 613 (Tex. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, J.

(after stating, the facts as above).

[1] The several assignments of error based upon the giving and refusing by the court of instructions to the jury may not be reviewed by this court for the appellants did not, so far as the record discloses, except to “the ruling” of the court in, such respect, as required by the statute. Railway Co. v. Wadsack, 166 S. W. 42; Railway Co. v. Bland, 181 S. W. 504.

[2] The remaining assignment of error contends that the verdict of the jury respecting limitation is contrary to the evidence and the law. ■ Concluding, as we have, that there is evidence in the record from which the jury could find, as they did, that the actual adverse possession of the defendants to the time of bringing the suit by appellee extended only, in point of fact, to the area of land described in their verdict, the assignment of error should, it is believed, be overruled. That the actual adverse possession of each defendant extended in fact to a less area of land than that claimed by them in their answer would not afford a sufficient ground to set the verdict aside.

Affirmed.

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] The several assignments of error based upon the giving and refusing by the court of instructions to the jury may not be reviewed by this court for the appellants did not, so far as the record discloses, except to “the ruling” of the court in, such respect, as required by the statute. Railway Co. v. Wadsack, 166 S. W. 42; Railway Co. v. Bland, 181 S. W. 504.

[2] The remaining assignment of error contends that the verdict of the jury respecting limitation is contrary to the evidence and the law. ■ Concluding, as we have, that there is evidence in the record from which the jury could find, as they did, that the actual adverse possession of the defendants to the time of bringing the suit by appellee extended only, in point of fact, to the area of land described in their verdict, the assignment of error should, it is believed, be overruled. That the actual adverse possession of each defendant extended in fact to a less area of land than that claimed by them in their answer would not afford a sufficient ground to set the verdict aside.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 S.W. 275, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-richardson-texapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack