Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Austin term, 1885, and the early portion of the Tyler term, 1885. Volume 64. Page: 74

                                
74                  SINCLAIR V. STANLEY.      [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
hold any part of them in defiance of the rightful owner. No such case
is before us on the present appeal. Had the defendants owned the
house which they first rendered uninhabitable and then demolished,
and had they been in the actual and peaceable occupancy of this
house, and the appellee had intruded himself into it, and refused to
vacate upon request, and the appellants had peaceably removed him,
the cases would have resembled each other. Some analogy between
them might have been drawn had the defendants been in actual
occupancy, in pedal possession of lot 8, having the same inclosed,
and the plaintiffs had made entry upon this lot, and placed a building
thereon. But the defendants' possession was such only as could
be inferred from the fact that their railroad company owned the said
northeast quarter and their road ran through a portion of it other
than that in which lot 8 was included. Lot 8 itself was vacant and
uninclosed. Stanley had a regular lease for this lot from parties
claiming title to it, under a judgment and execution of the United
States circuit court at Galveston. It is true, the sale under this
execution had been made at the federal, instead of the county, courthouse;
but as to whether or not this invalidated the title was a
question for the courts to decide, and as applied to the circumstances
under which this sale was made had never been determined
by the courts of Texas. To say that in this state of case the appellants,
although representing the true owner of the lot as subsequently
determined by the courts, could forcibly eject the appellee
from the premises, destroying his house and other property found
in it, is to assert a proposition which, we think, has no foundation
in law.
It is to dispense with actions for trying the title or right to possession
of land. It is, as Mr. Cooley says, to make a man judge in
his own cause with the right to confirm his judgment; to allow him
to employ force against a peaceable party; to invite a breach of
the peace and a public disturbance instead of a legal settlement of
disputed titles. Cooley on Torts, 323.
Our statutes have provided ample remedies at law for the owner
of lands against a claimant who takes possession, and attempts to
hold as against the true and legal title.
A legal and peaceable remedy was open to the railroad company,
and there was no necessity or propriety in its officers taking the law
into their own hands and expelling by force one who had not disturbed
their actual occupancy, and the appellants should answer in
damages for having committed a trespass instead of pursuing the
remedies provided by law.