The statutes of limitation as to an interest in land, which one owns as a remainderman, subject to a life estate in another, do not begin to run in favor of one in possession until the death of the life tenant. Gibbs v. Barkley, Tex.Com.App., 242 S.W. 462; Millican v. McNeill, 102 Tex. 189, 114 S.W. 106, 21 L.R.A., N.S., 60, 132 Am.St.Rep. 863, 20 Ann.Cas. 74; Cole v. Grigsby, Tex.Civ.App., 35 S.W. 680; Id., 89 Tex. 223, 35 S.W. 792; Cook v. Caswell, 81 Tex. 678, 17 S.W. 385, 387; Willis v. Fiveash, Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W. 509; Beaty v. Clymer, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 322, 75 S.W. 540; Phillips v. Palmer, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 91 [ 56 Tex. Civ. App. 91], 120 S.W. 911; Schnabel v. McNeill, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W. 558; Meurin v. Kopplin, Tex.Civ.App., 100 S.W. 984; Caffey's Ex'rs v. Cooksey, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 145, 47 S.W. 65; Kesterson v. Bailey, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 235 [ 35 Tex. Civ. App. 235], 80 S.W. 97; Govan v. Bynum, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 180, 43 S.W. 319; Morris v. Eddins, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 38 [ 18 Tex. Civ. App. 38], 44 S.W. 203; Haby v. Fuos, Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W. 1121. "In Olsen v. Grelle, Tex.Com.App., 228 S.W. 927, a case where the question of limitation arose as to the possession of defendants who were not strangers to the life estate, the statement of the rule as declared in the above authorities was narrowed so as not to include strangers.

This is the second appeal of the case. The opinion of this court on the former appeal, styled Phillips v. Palmer, is reported in 56 Tex. Civ. App. 91, 120 S.W. 911. On the trial from which this appeal is prosecuted the defendant Palmer, by a settlement between himself and plaintiffs, was eliminated from the case, and this appeal is by Swilley alone.

The presumption arising from the acquisition of property during marriage that it is community property, and that it remains such during the continuation of the marriage status, is very strong, and the most clear and satisfactory evidence will be required to overcome it. Wood v. Dean (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 363; Edelstein v. Brown et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 95 S.W. 1126; Phillips et al. v. Palmer et al., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 91, 120 S.W. 911; Watkins v. Watkins (Tex.Civ.App.) 119 S.W. 145. The burden of establishing the separate character of property, when the presumption obtains, is upon him who asserts it.

The statutes of limitation as to an interest in land, which one owns as a remainderman, subject to a life estate in another, do not begin to run in favor of one in possession until the death of the life tenant. Gibbs v. Barkley (Tex.Com.App.) 242 S.W. 462; Millican v. McNeill, 102 Tex. 189, 114 S.W. 106, 21 L.R.A. (N. S.) 60, 132 Am.St.Rep. 863, 20 Ann.Cas. 74; Cole v. Grigsby (Tex.Civ.App.) 35 S.W. 680; Id., 89 Tex. 223, 35 S.W. 792; Cook v. Caswell, 81 Tex. 678, 17 S.W. 385, 387; Willis v. Fiveash (Tex.Civ.App.) 297 S.W. 509; Beaty v. Clymer, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 322, 75 S.W. 540; Phillips v. Palmer, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 91, 120 S.W. 911; Schnabel v. McNeill (Tex.Civ.App.) 110 S.W. 558; Meurin v. Kopplin (Tex.Civ.App.) 100 S.W. 984; Caffey's Ex'rs v. Cooksey, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 145, 47 S.W. 65; Kesterson v. Bailey, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 235, 80 S.W. 97; Govan v. Bynum, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 180, 43 S.W. 319; Morris v Eddins, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 38, 44 S.W. 203; Haby v. Fuos (Tex.Civ.App.) 25 S.W. 1121. In Olsen v. Grelle (Tex.Com.App.) 228 S.W. 927, a case where the question of limitation arose as to the possession of defendants who were not strangers to the life estate, the statement of the rule as declared in the above authorities was narrowed so as not to include strangers.

We think that but one conclusion can be reached from the evidence pertinent to and bearing upon the issues of waiver, acquiescence, estoppel, laches, and limitation, presented by appellee's pleadings as a defense to appellants' right to recover, viz. that neither one of such defenses was shown to exist. Leach v. Wilson County, 68 Tex. 353, 4 S.W. 613; Home Investment Co. v. Strange, 109 Tex. 342, 195 S.W. 851, 204 S.W. 314, 207 S.W. 307; Lovenberg v. Mellen (Tex.Civ.App.) 144 S.W. 317; Phillips v. Palmer, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 91, 120 S.W. 911; Perkins v. Perkins (Tex.Civ.App.) 166 S.W. 915; 2 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.), § 817, p. 1677; sections 802, 803, 804 805, Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence; also sections 818, 820, Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence; Collins v. McCarty, 68 Tex. 150, 3 S.W. 730, 2 Am.St.Rep. 475; Hand v. Errington (Tex.Civ.App.) 233 S.W. 567, Id. (Tex.

The plaintiffs appealed, and the cause was reversed and remanded for a new trial. See Phillips v. Palmer, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 91, 120 S.W. 911. Without an amendment of the pleadings by these defendants, this cause came on again for trial on the 11th day of June, 1913.