Marion County v. Sparks

(after stating the case as above).

In Evitts v. Roth, 61 Tex. 81, it is said: “ ‘It is well settled that a party in possession, with improvements and inclosure, holds to the extent of his inclosure by what is termed actual possession; and if at the same time he holds under, deed or title, he holds to the extent of the boundaries of his deed of title, outside of his actual possession, by what is termed constructive possession.’ Cunningham v. Frandtzen, 26 Tex. [34] 38.

“The appellees claimed under the Ghol-son patent by deeds describing their respective tracts by metes and bounds. To the extent…