Skip to main content
· 10/26/1883

Medlin v. Wilkins

Citations

  • 60 Tex. 409
  • 1883 Tex. LEXIS 349

Syllabus

<p>1. Acquiescence—Boundary.—When a particular line has been acquiesced in or recognized by adjoining owners as their common boundary, it affords strong presumption that such line is the true dividing line; and though this presumption is strengthened by lapse of time, no period has been fixed that would render it conclusive.</p> <p>2. Judgment.— Strangers to a judgment may rely on it by way of estoppel for their protection as against parties to it when they have acted on the faith of its recitals to their injury.</p> <p>3. Boundary—Judgment—Evidence.— When a recital in a consent decree recognizes a designated line as the boundary line between the parties thereto, such decree is admissible in evidence, not as full proof to establish the true boundary when relied on by a stranger to the decree, but as a circumstance tending to establish it, to be weighed with other evidence.</p> <p>4. Same.— The effect to be given to such recital would depend upon the degree of knowledge of their respective rights possessed by the parties to the decree at the time of its entry.</p> <p>5. Lapse of time.— Lapse of time, as evidence tending to establish acquiescence in a designated boundary, would depend for its force as evidence upon the degree of information possessed as to his rights by the party sought to be affected thereby. See opinion for a case illustrating this rule.</p> <p>6. Charge of the court — Practice.— It is improper in the court to emphasize in its charge any particular portion of the evidence, unless it certainly establishes, as matter of law, some issue involved in the proceeding; but a disregard of this rule will only afford ground for reversal when it is calculated to mislead the jury.</p> <p>H. Limitation.— It is not sufficient that some deed forming a link in the chain of title asserted be recorded to enable one to claim the benefit of the statute of five years’ limitation; the dee.l or deeds, under which the party holds possession, must be recorded.</p> <p>8. Same

Judges: App, Com, Watts

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.