Vann v. Denson

6 Citing cases

  1. Peveto v. Herring

    198 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. Civ. App. 1946)   Cited 17 times

    The same result has been reached under the 10 year statute where the claimant undertook to mark off on the ground the limits of a specific 160 acre tract claimed by him out of a larger tract of which he did not hold actual possession. Vann v. Denson, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 220, 120 S.W. 1020, where the claimant, by mistake, included more than 160 acres within his lines; Thompson Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Williamson, Tex. Civ. App. 177 S.W. 987, where the claimant's knowledge of the boundaries of her tract was not exact. ("She knew about where the boundaries of the 160 acres were by the boundaries of surrounding tracts of land.") Appellants' restriction of claim is only significant as it may affect the exclusiveness of their possession, and it could not have that result unless plaintiff's grantors (whose record title antedated appellants' possession) had owned some land within appellants' enclosure but outside of the 160 acres claimed by appellants; and there is nothing to show whether they did or did not.

  2. Keys v. Tarrant Cty. Bldg. Loan Ass'n

    286 S.W. 593 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926)   Cited 3 times

    Neither Mrs. Keys nor her husband could disaffirm her conveyance to Elmer and have the same, together with the outstanding liens, canceled, and at the same time claim and retain said house and defeat appellee's right to subject it at least to his debt and lien. Dalton v. Rust, 22 Tex. 133, 151 et seq.; Vann v. Denson, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 220, 120 S.W. 1020, 1022 (writ refused); Texas St. L. R. Co. v. Robards, 60 Tex. 545, 48 Am.Rep. 268; Leon County v. Vann, 86 Tex. 707, 27 S.W. 258; Rowan v. Texas Orchard Development Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 181 S.W. 871, 881, par. 6 (writ refused); Murphy v. Sisters of the Incarnate Word, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 638, 97 S.W. 135; Goolsby v. Manning (Tex.Civ.App.) 270 S.W. 936, 938, 939; North Texas Oil Refining Co. v. Standard Tank Car Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 249 S.W. 253, 256, par. 7; Lodwick Lumber Co. v. Taylor (Tex.Civ.App.) 99 S.W. 192. Appellant Elmer Keys contends that the court erred in rendering judgment against him on his note to appellee.

  3. Cosgrove v. Nelson

    269 S.W. 891 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925)   Cited 6 times

    The law extends its protection to the rights of married women and will protect their homes, but it will not permit them to act fraudulently to the injury of others. McKinney v. Matthews (Tex. Sup.) 6 S.W. 793; Vann v. Denson, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 220, 120 S.W. 1021. To allow a married woman to profit by her own positive fraud, or to allow her to perpetrate a fraud by disputing the validity of a vendor's lien which she has caused to be placed on her property, would be to pervert the law which was passed for her benefit into an instrument of fraud.

  4. Foster Lumber Co. v. Rodgers

    184 S.W. 761 (Tex. Civ. App. 1916)   Cited 16 times
    In Foster Lumber Co. v. Rodgers, 184 S.W. 766, the injured party was on the lumber company's tram track in connection with sales to be made by them.

    The substantial matter referred to must be set forth in the statement, and should be followed by reference to pages of the record. For authorities pertinent to these objections, see Lupton v. Willmar, 154 S.W. 261; Griffin v. State, 147 S.W. 328; Railway v. Olds, 112 S.W. 787; Vann v. Denson, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 220, 120 S.W. 1020; Stockwell v. Glaspey, 160 S.W. 1151. As to authority on statement falling to show exceptions filed, see article 1971, Vernon's Sayles' Civ. Statutes; Gillett v. Hooligan, 162 S.W. 367; Railway Co. v. Reed, 165 S.W. 4; Carlock v. Willard, 149 S.W. 363; Hulme v. Levis-Zuloski Mercantile Co., 149 S.W. 781; as to time of taking exceptions, see Gillett v. Hooligan, 162 S.W. 367; Railway Co. v. Reed, 165 S.W. 4; and as to the statement not setting out the facts pertinent to the issue, see Moore v. Miller, 155 S.W. 573; Fuel Co. v. Ellis, 162 S.W. 911; Bute v. Williams, 162 S.W. 989; Daugherty v. Wiles, 156 S.W. 1089.

  5. Gibson v. Oppenheimer

    154 S.W. 694 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913)   Cited 16 times

    It has been often held that such statements are not sufficient, and that the assignments, with only such statements, should not be considered. Bayne v. Denny, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 52 S.W. 985; Railway v. Olds, 112 S.W. 787; Vann v. Denson, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 220, 120 S.W. 1020; Griffin v. State, 147 S.W. 328. The facts are stated, however, in an argument which follows the propositions of law; and in view of that fact the assignments are considered, although the rules have been disregarded.

  6. Griffin v. State

    147 S.W. 328 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912)   Cited 8 times

    References to the record have been held time and again not to comply with the rules in regard to statements. Bayne v. Denny, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 52 S.W. 985; Railway v. Olds, 112 S.W. 787; Vann v. Denson, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 220, 120 S.W. 1020. The judgment is affirmed.