Tuggle v. Wakefield Iron & Coal Improvement Co.

70 S.W. 555, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 393, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 536
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 12, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 S.W. 555 (Tuggle v. Wakefield Iron & Coal Improvement Co.) 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
Tuggle v. Wakefield Iron & Coal Improvement Co., 70 S.W. 555, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 393, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 536 (Tex. Ct. App. 1902).

Opinion

KEY, Associate Justice.

This is an action of trespass to try title to 640 acres of land, known as the John McClanahan survey, in Llano County. The plaintiffs are Tom McClanahan and Mary Tuggle.

There was a nonjury trial resulting in a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs submitted testimony showing that they were the children and only heirs of John McClanahan, who resided in De Witt County, Texas, from 1842 to the time of his death in 1855. The bounty warrant or certificate by virtue of which the land in question was granted to John McClanahan was issued January 20, 1838, and recites the fact that J ohn McClanahan had served in the army of Texas from the 22d day of September, 1836, to the 22d day of March, 1837.

*394 The defendants submitted testimony tending to show that, between 1836 and 1840, more than one John MeClanahan served in the army of Texas; and no evidence was offered to show that the John MeClanahan who was the father of the plaintiffs was the one who served from September, 1836, to March, 1837, and to whom the certificate by virtue of which the land in question was patented was issued. This being the condition of the testimony, and the trial court having filed no conclusions of fact, it is to be presumed that that court held that the plaintiffs failed to show that they were the children and heirs of the John MeClanahan to whom the land was granted; and, there being testimony to support that conclusion, this court hereby makes such finding of fact. This finding results in an affirmance of the judgment, and renders it unnecessary to consider the question of limitation.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Southern Wells Sales Co. v. Eastham
181 S.W. 698 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Farmers' State Bank of Quanah v. Farmer
157 S.W. 283 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 S.W. 555, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 393, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuggle-v-wakefield-iron-coal-improvement-co-texapp-1902.