Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Cuffie

Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Cuffie

144 S.W. 1024, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 972
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 25, 1912
StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.W. 1024 (Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Cuffie) 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
Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Cuffie, 144 S.W. 1024, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 972 (Tex. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

REESE, J.

On January 8, 1908, plaintiff, Wm. Cameron & Co., Incorporated, filed two suits in trespass to try title in the district court of Polk county, one against Frank Cuf-fie seeking recovery of a tract of land in the Rafael Bicera league containing 162 acres; the other against J. W. Cobb seeking a recovery from him of a tract of land in the same grant containing about 350 acres. The pleading in each case was in the ordinary form of trespass to try title.

Frank Cuffie answered by general demurrer, general denial, plea of not guilty, and disclaimed as to all of the land sued for except 160 acres of land out of the R. Bicera league set out and described in his said answer, as to which he pleaded the statute of limitation of 3, 5, and 10 years.

The defendant J. W. Cobb answered by general demurrer, general denial, plea of not guilty, and disclaimed as to all of the land sued for by plaintiff except 280 acres, more or less, described by metes and bounds in his answer as being part of the said Rafael Bicera league, and as to said tract he pleaded the statute of limitation of 3, 5, and 10 years. The lands described in the respective answers of Cuffie and Cobb were substantially the same lands set out and described respectively in the petitions filed by plaintiff in the suits against them, mentioned above.

By agreement of the parties, these causes were set down to be tried together as the issues in each case were almost identical, and, upon suggestion of the parties, the court made an order consolidating the two cases and the same were tried together as one cause. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, who, after hearing the evidence, gave judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of both defendants. No conclusions of law and fact were requested and *1025 none filed by the court. From the judgment plaintiff, Wm. Cameron & Co., Inc., appeals.

The evidence authorizes the following conclusions of fact: The Bicera league is located in Polk county, but in territory formerly belonging to Trinity county. The land' in controversy is part of this league. Appellant shows title to the 160 acres known as the Wagnon survey, and right to recover the same, except in so far as such right and title is defeated by the statutes of limitation pleaded by Frank Ouffie and others, who claimed this tract. Appellant also showed title to, and right to recover, the 280 acres claimed by Cobb, except that portion thereof in conflict with a certain 160 acres which had been conveyed by J. L. Hodge to Martin, and by Martin to A. Jernigan, as to which it concedes that it had no title. The decision of this appeal does not require any further reference to the portion of the land as to which this concession is made. The following plat was introduced in evidence and serves to illustrate and explain the testimony as to possession of appellees, and those under whom they claim.

In August, 1856, the county surveyor of Trinity county made three surveys on the Bicera league, then claimed to be vacant. A pre-emption survey of 160 acres for T. P. Wagnon, a pre-emption survey of 160 acres for A. Jernigan, and a 320-acre survey for A. Jernigan under a land certificate issued to one Kuykendall. These several surveys and their location as to each other are shown on the map. The A. Jernigan 160-acre preemption is not involved in this suit, nor is the 40 acres off the north side of the A. Jern-igan 320 acres, and adjoining the A. ,Jerni-gan 160 acres. The land in dispute is the Wagnon pre-emption and all of the Jernigan or Kuykendall 320 acres, except the 40-acre strip referred to, and also excepting that portion of this survey as to which appellant concedes that it has no title — and a parcel of land inclosed and claimed by Cobb as part of his 280 acres, lying south of the Wagnon, as shown by the plat.

T. P. Wagnon sold and conveyed to A. Jernigan his 160 acres by deed dated June 22, 1863, and recorded June 29, 1863. A. Jernigan by deed dated September 2, 1865, *1026 and recorded October 11, 1865, conveyed to W. A. Jernigan 640 acres, including the Wag-non, the Jernigan 160-acre pre-emption, and the 320 acres located under the Kuykendall certificate. By deed dated June 19, 1867, and recorded September 22, 1884, W. A. Jern-igan conveyed to A. Jernigan 200 acres of land “to be taken out of said 640 acres so that it will include the dwelling house where A. Jernigan now lives, and also the cultivated land lying south and southeast of said house, and also to be as nearly in a square form as may be and to run with the boundary line as possible.” In 1884, at the instance of the Jernigans, the county surveyor of Trinity county made a survey of 40 acres off the north side of the 320 acres, which taken with the 160 acres, the A. Jernigan pre-emption, made 200 acres.

*1025

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

Related

Houston v. Killough
16 S.W. 56 (Texas Supreme Court, 1891)
Titel v. Garland
87 S.W. 1152 (Texas Supreme Court, 1905)
Bracken v. Jones
63 Tex. 184 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)
Heirs of Groesbeck v. Heirs of Bodman
11 S.W. 322 (Texas Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 S.W. 1024, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wm-cameron-co-v-cuffie-texapp-1912.