De La Vega v. Butler

Citations

• 47 Tex. 529

Syllabus

<p>1. Limitation — Break in occupancy — Interval between making and recording deed.—Continuous possession is not interrupted when there is only a short .and reasonable time during which there was no actual occupancy between the outgoing and incoming of parties whose joint possession is required to complete the bar of the statute; so a reasonable time must ordinarily intervene between the date of the deed and its record, and the change of possession in conformity with the title of record. This necessary and reasonable interval will not deprive parties of the protection of the statute in the one case, any more than the other.</p> <p>2. Same.—An interval of seven days between the execution of a deed' and its record, will not break the continuity of possession under a ' recorded deed, where the adverse possession of both grantor and grantee in the deed is required to make the term of five years under the statute.</p> <p>3. Limitation—Parties claiming Ítnder same grant.—The fact that a defendant, in possession, claims title under a grant to the plaintiff, does not estop defendant from pleading limitation as a bar. The defendant, entering under a deed, holds for himself, and not for a remote vendor or the original grantee of the land.</p> <p>4. Same.—See facts held sufficient to support the defense of five years’ limitation.</p>