Floyd v. Rice

Citations

• 28 Tex. 341

Syllabus

<p>When the record shows no action to have been taken by the court below on exceptions to pleadings, it is to be presumed in this court that the exceptions were abandoned without being brought to the notice of the court below.</p> <p>It is a sufficient objection to a deposition that the officer by whom it was taken and returned was a surety on the bond for costs of the party offering the deposition in evidence. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3726.) •</p> <p>If the verdict be contrary to evidence illegally admitted, the objecting party cannot complain.</p> <p>On a question of the true locality of a common boundary, the fact that a particular line has been acquiesced in or recognized by the adjoining proprietors as their common boundary line is evidence entitled to great weight, and affords a strong presumption that the line so acquiesced in or recognized is the true line. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 894, Note 1144.)</p> <p>The presumption in favor of the line acquiesced in or recognized by adjoining proprietors as their common boundary line is strengthened by the lapse of time; but no statute of limitations or rule of law is known by which any definite time is fixed as the period at which such a presumption becomes conclusive. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 4622, 4624, Notes 1031, 1033.)</p> <p>Other considerations besides the mere lapse of time are involved in determining how conclusive, in any particular case, the presumption in favor of a recognized boundary line is to be regarded. Each case must furnish its own rule, to be deduced by the court and jury from its own facts, circumstances, and surroundings.</p> <p>An instruction which has been substantially given need not be repeated. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1464, Note 562.)</p> <p>It is the peculiar province of the jury to decide upon the credibility and weight of conflicting testimony.</p>