Skip to main content
· 7/1/1876

Flanagan v. Boggess

Citations

  • 46 Tex. 330

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Error in immaterial issue.—An erroneous ruling, in admitting evidence, authorizes a reversal when it may have operated to the prejudice oi the party complaining, but not otherwise.</p> <p>2. Assignment of errors.—An assignment, that “the court erred in its charge,” is too general to require attention.</p> <p>3. Charge of court.—A charge assuming a fact not in evidence is properly refused by the court.</p> <p>4. Description of land in tax deeds.—Held, That “ 620 acres of the headlight of David Brown, situate about twelve miles north of Henderson, in the neighborhood of Bellview,” used in a tax deed, is a sufficient description of land to form a basis for five years’ limitation.</p> <p>5. Tax deed—Limitation.—When a tax deed gives what, on its face, appears to be a sufficient description of the land conveyed, and there is no evidence developing any latent uncertainty, the authorities do not decide that such a deed does not satisfy the statute of limitations.</p> <p>6. Practice—Exclusion of testimony.—Where the exclusion of testimony is claimed to be erroneous, the party injured should show, by bill of exceptions, what objections were made to the testimony, and why it was excluded.</p> <p>7. Payment of taxes—Five years’ limitation.—This court is not. prepared to hold that, to support the bar of five years’ limitation, it was necessary to prove payment of taxes during the time the statute was suspended.</p> <p>8. Limitation—Possession.—See facts held insufficient to show that defendant, setting up title under a tax deed and five years’ possession, paying taxes, &c., had adverse possession as against the plaintiff.</p> <p>9. Same.—Where the husband of one of several heirs entitled to an estate bought lands of the estate at tax sale, and afterwards the administrator of the estate called on him and offered to repay tiie money expended in the purchase at the tax sale, and the money was refused, the purchaser saying that “we are all interested,” and postponing

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • refusing to find that a confidential relationship existed between the parties because the parties merely established “a single,' arms-length transaction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gould

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.