Salazar Et Al. v. Garcia Et Al‪.‬

The appellants, Concepcion N. Salazar et al. filed this suit in the 73rd District Court of Bexar County, Texas, against Guadalupe Garcia and Louis A. Hartung (whose wife, Anna Hartung, thereafter became a party defendant) all of whom are appellees. The appellants, as plaintiffs below, prayed that they be declared to be the rightful owners of Lots 32 and 33, City Block No. 2640, in San Antonio, Texas, and that the appellees be restrained and enjoined from trespassing upon said lots or removing the improvements therefrom. A temporary restraining order was granted restraining defendants from removing the improvements and a hearing was set for January 28, 1949, on plaintiffs application for temporary injunction. On January 22d defendants filed a motion praying that the restraining order be dissolved and an answer in which they alleged that the improvements on plaintiffs lots were placed thereon by defendants under mistaken belief and in good faith that such lots were theirs and that they feared plaintiffs would move into said improvements and deprive defendants of the right to remove same to their lots which adjoin said Lots 32 and 33, and prayed that plaintiffs be enjoined from moving into or taking possession of the improvements placed on plaintiffs land during pendency of this suit. A hearing was had on January 28, 1949, and a temporary injunction granted plaintiffs perpetuating the restraining order and enjoining defendants from interfering with the possession of said property and from removing the same pending trial of the suit on its merits. Thereafter, on February 14, 1949, the defendant Guadalupe Garcia filed an answer containing a plea of not guilty and a general denial and specially answering that the improvements located on plaintiffs lots were placed thereon by her in good faith, believing she owned the lots; that she had paid and obligated herself to pay $3,969.50 for said improvements and by virtue of the same the lots had been enhanced in value in the sum of $3,969.50; that said improvements could be removed without damage to plaintiffs property, but plaintiffs refuse to permit their removal and do not offer to pay the enhancement in value; that the improvements, consisting of a four-room house, were innocently placed on plaintiffs lots by defendant at her own cost and expense; that since she discovered her mistake she had negotiated with plaintiffs for permission to remove same to two adjoining lots owned by her; that she had offered and does offer to buy plaintiffs lots at their present reasonable market value; that her lots were of identical size and of equal value, and that she had offered and does offer to exchange lots with plaintiffs, and that she had offered and does offer to enter into any reasonable adjustment whereby plaintiffs would not sustain any injury to their lots, but plaintiffs refused and had not offered and do not offer to do equity, wherefore she prayed that plaintiffs take nothing and for any legal or equitable relief that she may be entitled to by virtue of such facts.