FINDLAY v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 6386.

Judges

JENKINS, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellants, Findlay et al., challenged a prior decision regarding land ownership disputes involving alleged vacancies and excesses in land patented to the Capitol Company. Initially, the State sued Findlay et al. for recovery of an alleged excess in land, excluding the alleged vacancies, and filed separate trespass to try title suits against other parties for the alleged vacancies. By agreement, all cases were consolidated, and the State filed an amended petition seeking recovery of both the alleged excess and the alleged vacancies. The State also included an alternative claim that if any of the tracts claimed as vacant land did not belong to the State, those tracts constituted additional excess land adjoining the Capitol leagues, thereby increasing the amount recoverable as excess.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the State’s amended petition sufficiently alleged a claim to include the alleged vacancies as part of the excess land recoverable in the consolidated suit.
Whether the court properly added the amount of the alleged vacancies to the amount of excess land found by the trial court.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants contended that the court's decision to add the alleged vacancies to the amount of excess land was not justified by the pleadings.
They argued that the State did not claim the alleged vacancies as part of the excess but rather claimed ownership of them as vacant land.

State's Position

By filing the amended petition after consolidation, the State sought to recover the alleged excess as originally claimed and the alleged vacancies from other defendants.
The State included an alternative allegation that if any tracts claimed as vacant land did not belong to it, those tracts were excess land adjoining the Capitol leagues, thus increasing the recoverable excess.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the amended petition and found that the State’s alternative allegation provided a sufficient pleading basis to treat the alleged vacancies as additional excess land. The court concluded that, under the facts and the pleadings, it was proper to add the amount of the alleged vacancies to the excess land amount found by the trial court. The court emphasized that the alternative relief sought by the State was adequately pleaded and justified the judgment rendered.

Holding and Implications

The motion for rehearing was overruled.

The court upheld its prior decision adding the alleged vacancies to the amount of excess land recoverable by the State. This ruling affirmed the sufficiency of the State’s amended pleading to support the judgment. No new precedent was established; the decision directly affected the parties by confirming the judgment in favor of the State as to the land claims.

Show full summary ...

FINDLAY et al. v. STATE.

JENKINS, J.

Appellants, Findlay et al., contend that our decision herein rendered on motion for rehearing, March 8, 1922, wherein we held that, under the facts of this case, the alleged vacancies claimed by the state did not exist, but that the same constituted excesses in the land patented to the Capitol Company, and should be added to the amount of excess recovered by the state, is not justified by the pleadings herein, in that the state did not claim such alleged vacancies as a part of the excess, but claimed ownership thereof by virtue of the same being vacant land.

Such was the status of the pleadings as originally filed. That is to say, the state sued Findley et al. for an alleged excess which did not include the alleged vacancies, and for partition as to such excess; and in separate suits sued the other parties hereto, in trespass to try title, to recover the alleged vacancies.

By agreement of all parties, all of the cases were consolidated in the suit brought to recover the excess, and thereupon the state filed its first amended original petition herein, in which it sought to recover from Findlay et al. the alleged excess as theretofore alleged, and also sought to recover from the other defendants the alleged vacancies. But the amended petition also contained this allegation:

"Plaintiff, for the purpose of obtaining in this suit alternative relief from that prayed for in the causes hereinafter referred to, alleges: That, by agreement of the parties hereto and under the orders of this court entered herein and entered in said causes on motions ; filed therein, causes Nos. 36,184, 36,185, 36,260, and 36,261 in this court have been consolidated with this suit for the purpose of trial. In said causes the state is suing various persons and corporations for the recovery of the title and possession of several tracts of land belonging to the state and being vacant tracts of land adjoining certain of the Capitol leagues. Plaintiff alleges that, if the court should find that any of the said tracts, or any part of any of said tracts, does not belong to the state, or is not vacant land, then such tract, or tracts, or parts of such tract or tracts, is excess within the Capitol league or leagues, which it adjoins, and the total excess acreage within the Capitol leagues hereinbefore referred to will be increased to the extent of the acreage of such tract or tracts, or parts of such tract or tracts; and plaintiff, in such alternative, is the owner of an undivided interest in the land described in schedule X to the extent also of such additional excess and is entitled to a recovery of such excess in addition to that hereinbefore described."

We hold that this allegation furnishes a sufficient basis in the pleading for our judgment herein adding the amount of such alleged vacancies to the amount of the excess found by the trial court; for which reason we rendered such judgment herein as, in our opinion under the facts found, should have been rendered by the court below.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Motion overruled.