Van Valkenburg v. Ruby

3 S.W. 746, 68 Tex. 139, 1887 Tex. LEXIS 654
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1887
DocketNo. 2374
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 3 S.W. 746 (Van Valkenburg v. Ruby) 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
Van Valkenburg v. Ruby, 3 S.W. 746, 68 Tex. 139, 1887 Tex. LEXIS 654 (Tex. 1887).

Opinion

Gaines, Associate Justice.

This is an action of trespass to try title, and was brought by appellant Van Valkenburg to recover of appellees and others a certain block of lots in the city of Houston. He sued out a writ of sequestration, by virtue of which the property was taken into possession by the sheriff, who, it seems, still held the same at the time of the trial in the court below. The other appellants were sureties on the sequestration bond. Appellees in their answers claimed title and also set up improvements in good faith. They also pleaded in reconvention, claiming damages against plaintiff and the sureties on his sequestration bond, on the ground that the writ was wrongfully and maliciously sued out. The case was submitted to a jury, who found a verdict for plaintiff for the property claimed, but also found that appellees were possessors in good faith and had made valuable improvements upon the lots.

The verdict reads as follows: “We, the jury, in the above entitled case, find that the title to the land in block number two hundred is vested in plaintiff Van Valkenburg, and value the same at one hundred and twenty-five dollars per lot; upon the question of three years limitation we also find for plaintiff; also upon question of five (5) years limitation; also upon the question of exemplary damages in suing out the writ of sequestration; also as against defendant Thacker for ground rent, two hundred and sixteen dollars. We find for defendant Thacker for his improvements made in good faith upon lot number ten, two hundred and fifty-six dollars; for rent for twelve months on the same, one hundred dollars; and for improvements on lots numbers eight and nine, three hundred and eighty-four dollars, and for rents on same, one hundred dollars.

[141]*141

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

Related

Siratt v. Worth Const. Co.
263 S.W.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Niebuhr v. Behringer
123 S.W.2d 733 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Interstate Trust & Banking Co. v. West Texas Utilities Co.
88 S.W.2d 1110 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Radford v. Automobile Underwriters of America
299 S.W. 852 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1927)
St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Inman
283 S.W. 689 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Puckett v. Davis
238 S.W. 367 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Cole
145 S.W. 1098 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Houston v. Darnell Lumber Co.
146 S.W. 1061 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Ward v. Brady
63 Misc. 435 (New York Supreme Court, 1909)
Cahill v. Benson
46 S.W. 888 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1898)
Searcy v. Grant
37 S.W. 320 (Texas Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 S.W. 746, 68 Tex. 139, 1887 Tex. LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-valkenburg-v-ruby-tex-1887.