We are of the opinion, in the circumstances of the case before us, that the proportionate difference is too great to hold that the payment of taxes on only 70 acres was a sufficient, substantial compliance with the requisite of the statute in this respect to ripen title under the five-year statute of limitation in T. J. Dunbar to the 105 acres claimed and called for in his deed. Hoencke v. Lomax, 102 Tex. 487, 119 S.W. 842, in which case Judge Williams, speaking for the Supreme Court, said: "We do not think, however, that a claim of title under the 5-year statute can be maintained where for some of the years making up that period taxes were paid on some undefined part of the land claimed under the deed." For the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion that the appellees have not by any of the statutes of limitation acquired the interest of El Starr in the land.
— The trial court did not err in peremptorily directing a verdict against the defendants. Trueheart v. McMichael, 46 Tex. 222; Dotson v. Moss, 58 Tex. 152; Giddings v. Fischer, 77 S.W. 209; Titel v. Garland, 87 S.W. 1152; Rice v. Goolsbee, 99 S.W. 1031; Wiley v. Bargman, 90 S.W. 1118; Webb v. Lyerla, 94 S.W. 1095; Montgomery v. Gunther, 81 Tex. 325; Turner v. Moore, 81 Tex. 206; Woods v. Hull, 90 Tex. 228; Roberts v. Agnew, 103 S.W. 1178; Warren v. Frederichs, 83 Tex. 384; Mhoon v. Cain, 77 Tex. 316; Blum v. Rogers, 32 S.W. 713; Schleicher v. Gatlin, 85 Tex. 270; Hoencke v. Lomax, 119 S.W. 842; Robinson v. Bazoon, 79 Tex. 525; Hartman v. Huntington, 32 S.W. 562. PLEASANTS, CHIEF JUSTICE. —