prevailing American rule in Texas

1958In the opinion the Court of Appeals said: "* * * In Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Standard Steel Car Co., 210 Pa. 464 , 60 A. 4, 7 , plaintiff sought to protect its secret construction design for railroad cars.

1958In the opinion the Court of Appeals said: "* * * In Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Standard Steel Car Co., 210 Pa. 464 , 60 A. 4, 7 , plaintiff sought to protect its secret construction design for railroad cars.

1965In Bradshaw v. Ashley [ 180 U.S. 59 , 21 S.Ct. 297 , 45 L.Ed. 423 ] which undoubtedly represents the prevailing American rule, the United States Supreme Court categorically stated: “ ‘[T]he presumption of title arises from the possession, and, unless the defendant prove a better title, he must himself be ousted. * * * ’ ” The appellees having established their superior legal title to the property in litigation as a matter of law, and that no material fact issue existed as to their cause of action, and appellants having failed to show that any material fact issue existed upon any affirmative de

1965In Bradshaw v. Ashley [ 180 U.S. 59 , 21 S.Ct. 297 , 45 L.Ed. 423 ] which undoubtedly represents the prevailing American rule, the United States Supreme Court categorically stated: “ ‘[T]he presumption of title arises from the possession, and, unless the defendant prove a better title, he must himself be ousted. * * * ’ ” The appellees having established their superior legal title to the property in litigation as a matter of law, and that no material fact issue existed as to their cause of action, and appellants having failed to show that any material fact issue existed upon any affirmative de

1964Although he proves that some third person, with whom he in no manner connects himself, has title, this does him no good, because the prior possession of the plaintiff was sufficient to authorize him to maintain it as against a trespasser, and the defendant, being himself without title, and not connecting himself with any title, cannot justify an ouster of the plaintiff." In the early case of Christy v. Scott, 14 How. 282 , 14 L.Ed. 422 (1852), the plaintiff was in possession of land claiming under a Mexican state grant.

1964Although he proves that some third person, with whom he in no manner connects himself, has title, this does him no good, because the prior possession of the plaintiff was sufficient to authorize him to maintain it as against a trespasser, and the defendant, being himself without title, and not connecting himself with any title, cannot justify an ouster of the plaintiff." In the early case of Christy v. Scott, 14 How. 282 , 14 L.Ed. 422 (1852), the plaintiff was in possession of land claiming under a Mexican state grant.

1951Strickland Transport Co. v. Atkins, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 675 , is not in point here unless it be assumed that the sheriff's testimony is fraught with "uncertainty." However that may be, I think this case should be decided in accordance with the prevailing American rule on the subject.

1951Strickland Transport Co. v. Atkins, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 675 , is not in point here unless it be assumed that the sheriff’s testimony is fraught with “uncertainty.” However that may be, I think this case should be decided in accordance with the prevailing American rule on the subject.

1950Co., 312 Mo. 173 , 279 S.W. 89 , and Wabash Screen Door Co. v. Black, 61 C.C.A. 639 , 126 F. 721 , and state the prevailing American rule as follows: “The rule denying the right to show that defendant in a negligence case carries liability insurance is not intended to override the equally positive and salutary principle that a party has the right to cross-examine the witness produced by his adversary, touching every relation tending to show interest or bias, if the insurance company chooses to come before the jury, and place its own witnesses upon the stand, the plaintiff should 'be permitted

1950Co., 312 Mo. 173 , 279 S.W. 89 , and Wabash Screen Door Co. v. Black, 61 C.C.A. 639 , 126 F. 721 , and state the prevailing American rule as follows: “The rule denying the right to show that defendant in a negligence case carries liability insurance is not intended to override the equally positive and salutary principle that a party has the right to cross-examine the witness produced by his adversary, touching every relation tending to show interest or bias, if the insurance company chooses to come before the jury, and place its own witnesses upon the stand, the plaintiff should 'be permitted

1950Co., 312 Mo. 173 , 279 S.W. 89 , and Wabash Screen Door Co. v. Black, 61 C.C.A. 639 , 126 F. 721 , and state the prevailing American rule as follows: “The rule denying the right to show that defendant in a negligence case carries liability insurance is not intended to override the equally positive and salutary principle that a party has the right to cross-examine the witness produced by his adversary, touching every relation tending to show interest or bias, if the insurance company chooses to come before the jury, and place its own witnesses upon the stand, the plaintiff should 'be permitted

1950Co., 312 Mo. 173 , 279 S.W. 89 , and Wabash Screen Door Co. v. Black, 61 C.C.A. 639 , 126 F. 721 , and state the prevailing American rule as follows: “The rule denying the right to show that defendant in a negligence case carries liability insurance is not intended to override the equally positive and salutary principle that a party has the right to cross-examine the witness produced by his adversary, touching every relation tending to show interest or bias, if the insurance company chooses to come before the jury, and place its own witnesses upon the stand, the plaintiff should 'be permitted