Cantagrel v. Von Lupin

Citations

• 58 Tex. 570
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 68

Syllabus

<p>1. Limitation.— To make the statute of five years available as a defense, it is not necessary that the land should have been assessed as the property of the defendant. The payment of taxes by the defendant is sufficient, without regard to the assessment.</p> <p>2. Possession — Limitation.— An actual, visible and exclusive appropriation of land is constituted by the fencing and continued use of it as a pasture, without an actual residing on it; and this is a sufficient possession under the five years’ statute.</p> <p>3. Possession.— A mere intruder upon land holds only to the limits of his actual inclosure, while one who enters under a claim or color of title may hold to the boundaries described in the deed under which he claims.</p> <p>4. Limitation.— The protection of the five years’ statute may he invoked by one in possession under a claim of right, who holds under a deed recorded, though the authority of his vendor, who assumed to convey under a power of attorney, is not produced. If proof of the existence of the power would have made his title good without regard to the length of his possession, the absence of that proof was the very defect which possession under the five years’ statute was intended to cure.</p> <p>5. Certainty op description.—Possession under a recorded deed, which described the land as “all the land” which the vendor owned “in Harris county,” is a sufficient description of the land under the plea of five years’ limitation, when it ia shown that the vendor had a recorded deed describing the particular land.</p> <p>6. Same.— A like possession, open, notorious and adverse, as lessee under one claiming title under deed recorded, is sufficient.under the five years’ statute, though the lessee entered under a contract of lease made with one who assumed to have authority to make the lease from the vendee in the deed, but whose authority did not appear.</p>