Rowe v. Horton

Citations

• 65 Tex. 89
• 1885 Tex. LEXIS 316

Syllabus

<p>1. Mistake—Inconsistent Allegations.—Plaintiff alleged that she and defendant partitioned between them a league of land ; that in accordance with an agreement, a portion of the land contained within certain metes and bounds was conveyed to defendant as his share; the petition further stated that the agreement was to convey only 400 acres, but through an error made by the surveyor, 676 acres were conveyed in the deed. Held</p> <p>(1) That as the first allegation claimed no mistake in making the agreement, there was nothing in the deed to correct. (2) The latter allegations were contradictory of the first, and taken in connection with the first, showed a state of case so inconsistent with itself as to warrant the court below in refusing relief.</p> <p>2. Boundaries—Presumption.—Every owner of land is presumed to know its boundaries and the well-marked and defined lines that separate it from adjoin- . ing tracts belonging to another.</p> <p>3. Limitation—Negligence.—In a suit over the boundaries of land, the plaintiff alleged that the lands were situated in the woods, and partly in a river bottom, and were remote from her residence. Held: That these facts did not excuse plaintiff from knowing the boundaries of her land and being acquainted with errors therein; if she did not improve her opportunities of knowing the limits of her land she did not give that reasonable attention which was due to her affairs, and such negligence deprived her of relief in equity by re-forming the boundaries after the bar of the statute of limitations had run.</p>