M. McDonnold, Jr., Petitioners v. Charles Weinacht, Respondents

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals, holding that the defendants did not establish adverse possession of the disputed tract because their grazing, fence repairs, and weed cutting were incidental and did not constitute a visible, hostile claim under the ten‑year statute. The Court emphasized that mere use of unenclosed commons and occasional grazing are insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements. The decision was joined by a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion that argued the combined acts did establish adverse possession.