Harrell v. Houston

Citations

• 66 Tex. 278
• 17 S.W. 731
• 1886 Tex. LEXIS 502

Syllabus

<p>1. Agreed boundary line—Effect—If the boundary line between two tracts of land is drawn at the wrong place, and the respective owners expressly agree that it shall be the line between them, or accept it and acquiesce in it as the boundary line for a long period of time, it becomes their established division line.</p> <p>2. Charge—Practice—See opinion for omission in charge of the court held no ground for reversal, no special charge having been asked to cure the defect.</p> <p>3. Evidence—Revised Statutes, article 2248—See facts for testimony prohibited by R. S., art. 2248.</p> <p>4. Boundaries—Acquiescence—Improvements—A controversy as to boundary lines between plaintiff and defendants was apparently settled by several surveys run in 1875, and plaintiff readjusted her fences to correspond with the boundary line claimed by defendants ; defendants, in 1876, erected a fence on the land apparently abandoned to them by plaintiff. In 1883 another survey was made, which located the boundary line where plaintiff had originally asserted it to be. Plaintiff did not claim the fence erected in 1876, but ordered defendants not to remove it. On its removal she sued for its value. Held:</p> <p>(1) If plaintiff had not lost her right to reclaim the land by her acquiescence in the line run in 1875, defendants had forfeited no claim to their improvements. (Saunders v. Wilson, 19 Tex., 201.)</p> <p>(2) The fence did not become plaintiff’s property if she declined to claim it, and for its removal she could not recover its value, when, if she had kept it, she would have been liable to defendants for the enhanced value of the land if it was hers.</p> <p>5. Assignment of error—Practice—See facts for assignment of error not properly presented.</p>