Browning v. Atkinson

Citations

• 46 Tex. 605

Syllabus

<p>1. Dividing line.—A dividing line fairly agreed upon, and marked out by the owners of adjoining tracts of land, will be conclusive upon both, and those claiming under them, as to the true locality of their dividing line, though it may subsequently, after long acquiescence, be ascertained to vary from the course called for in the deeds, under which the parties claimed prior to agreeing upon the line; and the rule is the same, whether the marked line be recognized and called for in a deed, or whether it be subsequently marked and established by the parties.</p> <p>2. Dividing line—Long acquiescence.—A marked divisional line, found upon the ground in 1838, recognized as the divisional line by the original claimants of the adjacent tracts, and afterwards, for a series of years, by those claiming under them, though it may vary ten degrees, in a part of its length, from the course called for in the deed, could not be regarded as having been established in error, in a suit begun in 1862, and could not at that late day be corrected.</p> <p>3. Practice—Intervenor.—A plaintiff who sues for land, the title to which is in an intervenor in the same suit, is not entitled to recover by reason of the fact that the petition of intervention united with plaintiff in the prayer, that title to the land might be decreed in plaintiff. No such effect can be given to such a plea; suits must be brought in the name of the party legally or equitably entitled.</p>