Opinion
Application No. 2227.
Decided April 20, 1899.
Limitation — Five Years — Payment of Taxes.
Refusing a writ of error upon the judgment of affirmance in this case by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth District, on the ground that the judgment was correct, the court are not prepared to approve the ruling therein that the plea of limitation under the five years statute was sustained.
APPLICATION for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth District on its judgment of affirmance upon writ of error from Harris County.
W.G. Lane, for petitioner. — [Assignments of error.] — The honorable Court of Civil Appeals erred in its first conclusion of law in holding that the deed from Mary Barrett to Margaret Deegan was sufficient in the description of the land sued for to identify it and to inform anyone that it was the land in controversy and that it was sufficient to support a plea of five years limitation. Said conclusion of law by said court was erroneous, because the deed referred to therein and held thereby to be sufficient to sustain a plea of limitation of five years was not sufficient on its face to identify the land attempted to be conveyed thereby, or to show that the land in controversy was the same land attempted to be conveyed by or held under it.
The honorable Court of Civil Appeals erred in its opinion and conclusion that it was not necessary to support the statute of limitation of five years to show that the taxes were paid as they accrued, and in holding in effect that the defendant in error by virtue of her possession of the land in controversy from 1889 to 1895, and because she paid the taxes for 1893 and 1894 as they accrued, and that the taxes of 1890 and 1891 were not paid until November 29, 1892, was sufficient to perfect title by limitation of five years.
The honorable Court of Civil Appeals erred in refusing to sustain as well taken the plaintiff in error's seventh assignment of error, which complains of the admission in evidence by the trial court of the deed from Mary Barrett to Margaret Deegan, because said deed was void for want of sufficient description of the land in controversy and did not identify the land attempted to be conveyed thereby with sufficient certainty to render the same admissible in support of the plea of five years limitation.
The honorable Court of Civil Appeals erred in overruling and in not sustaining as well taken the plaintiff in error's tenth assignment of error which attacks the judgment of the trial court as without evidence legally sufficient to support, in that the evidence shows that defendant in error failed to pay the taxes on the property in controversy far the years 1890 and 1891 until 1892, and the payment of taxes was not begun and continued in connection with the possession during the full period of five years.
We are not prepared to concur with the Court of Civil Appeals in holding that the appellee made out her title to the land in controversy by virtue of the statute of limitations of five years. But we think that she showed title otherwise. The application is therefore refused.
Writ of error refused.