Johnson v. Nash's Heirs
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bastrop. It appeared from the statement of facts that a witness for the defendant testified, without apparent objection, that Joseph Jones kept possession of the property until he sold it to Thomas Glascock; that Glascock sold it to H. Y. Allen; that Allen died in 1841 or 1842, and Mark M. Rogers, as his administrator, sold the property to William S. Holton, who took possession in 1842. On account of the minority of the plaintiffs, the case depended on whether…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bastrop. It appeared from the statement of facts that a witness for the defendant testified, without apparent objection, that Joseph Jones kept possession of the property until he sold it to Thomas Glascock; that Glascock sold it to H. Y. Allen; that Allen died in 1841 or 1842, and Mark M. Rogers, as his administrator, sold the property to William S. Holton, who took possession in 1842. On account of the minority of the plaintiffs, the case depended on whether the Statute commenced before the death of the ancestor. The other facts appear from the Opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
This was a suit by the widow and heirs of Francis M. Nash, deceased, to recover of the defendant, Chauncey Johnson, certain town lots in the town of Bastrop. The lots had been sold by one Joseph Jones to the said Francis M. Nash in the Spring of 1840, and in the Fall of the same year Francis M. Nash departed this life. Jones continued in possession after the sale, claimed and exercised acts of ownership, and by averment in the answer and parol proof, he sold the lots subsequent to the death of Nash, and by successive *420sales the possession was continued down to the defendant,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Scott v. RodgersTexas Commission of Appeals · 1928
- Kendrick v. LathamSupreme Court of Florida · 1889
- Wengenroth v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1927
- Stewart v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1880
- McNeely v. LanganOhio Supreme Court · 1871