The application for writ of error was granted in this case dealing with adverse possession of grazing land to determine if there was evidence to support the findings of the jury, and to review the treatment by the Court of Civil Appeals of a former opinion by this Court, the Orsborn case, [Orsborn v. Deep Rock Oil Corp., 153 Tex. 281, 267 S.W.2d 781] dealing with “casual fences.”
The suit was brought by Butler in trespass to try title to 157.22 acres of surface estate in Glasscock County. A portion of the land purchased by Butler had been occupied by the defendant Hanson and his predecessors for over 30 years and used by them for grazing purposes. This portion of the land had been enclosed with over approximately 1,000 acres of Hanson lands as a part of the Hanson ranch; and this portion of the ranch, including the land in controversy, had been surrounded by a substantial fence.
The jury answered the adverse possession issues favorably to Hanson. Judgment was rendered that the plaintiff Butler take nothing. The Court of Civil Appeals sitting at El Paso affirmed. 432 S.W.2d 559.
After a careful review of the evidence and the authorities, we are of the opinion that the case has, in substance, been properly decided by the Court of Civil Appeals; and accordingly, we affirm its holdings on the major points at issue. Because of an erroneous and apparently inadvertent inclusion in the judgment of the trial court of a small portion of Butler’s land lying outside of Hanson’s fence, the judgments below are reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to correct its judgment.
The land in this area of Western Texas was laid off in sections a mile square which were supposed to contain 640 acres each. The Hansons owned, among other lands, Section 46. Immediately to the south of Section 46 is Section 3, the surface of which was purchased by Butler in 1963 from some people named Nunn. The problem was the boundary line between Sections 46 and 3. The Hansons, according to the testimony, were of the opinion that Section 46 extended to the south to the “Hanson fence.” A survey map prepared for Butler shortly before he purchased the land shows that the fence is on Section 3; and this encroachment on Section 3 is the subject of this litigation. The survey map prepared for Butler is set out in the dissent hereto and in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals at page 561 of 432 S.W.2d. Appended to this opinion is a crude drawing made at the trial by Bud Hanson. It sets out his rough understanding of the boundaries of the sections, and his fences are indicated with X marks in the boundaries.
*944The jury found that Hanson, or those under whom Hanson deraigned title or possession, had had adverse possession of the land in controversy, using the same, for a period of ten years or longer, prior to December 28, 1962; that the land had been kept enclosed during such period by a substantial fence, capable of turning livestock; that the fence was maintained for the purpose of establishing and maintaining exclusive possession and control of the land in controversy under a claim of right.
As above noted, the jury was asked about ten or more years of adverse possession prior to December 28, 1962. On that date, Hanson signed an affidavit for Butler in which Hanson said that a part of Section 3 (purchased by Butler a month later) might be within his fence, that he owned no part of Section 3 and claimed no interest therein. The jury found that on that date, December 28, 1962, Hanson was not making a claim of right to that part of Section 3 within his fence. It also found that Hanson did not conceal from Butler his claim of right to that part of Section 3 within his fence, and that Butler had the means of readily ascertaining Hanson’s claim of right. The effect of this affidavit will be discussed later herein.
The main attack on the jury findings of Hanson’s adverse possession is that there is no evidence to support the findings. In such a situation, it is our duty to view the evidence in its most favorable light, considering only the evidence and inferences which support the findings, and rejecting the evidence and inferences which are contrary to the findings. Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502, 171 S.W.2d 696 (1914); Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 149 Tex. 507, 235 S.W.2d 609 (1950); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Scharrenbeck, 146 Tex. 153, 204 S.W.2d 508 (1947); Robertson v. Robertson, 159 Tex. 567, 323 S.W.2d 938 (1959); and Calvert, “No Evidence” and “Insufficient Evidence” Points of Error, 38 Texas Law Review 361 (1960).
Much of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict of adverse possession is set out in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. We here supplement those facts by referring specifically to some of the testimony.
Bud Hanson, who was 60 at the time of trial, had been familiar with the land all his life. He remembered the fence in question as being where it was since 1914. In 1932, Bud’s father had leased 11½ sections, including the Section 46 in question to a tenant, Clyde Berry, who testified at the trial. As will be noted below, Berry maintained the fences, including the one in question. Bud had lived on the land with his mother and father in 1934 and 1935. He testified that in the early ‘30’s, in 1934, “We put a net fence around the whole ranch. We’ were my dad and me and 2 or 3 men, my brothers-in-law.” The net fence was added to the three-strand barbed wire because “I wanted to put up a better fence to hold sheep.”
Hanson testified he “heired” Section 46 in 1958 and got a deed to Sections 46 and 2 from his family in 1949. In the period between 1949 and 1952, he rebuilt the fences, put a new fence post between each of the old posts and had continuously maintained them. The land inside the fences was continuously used for grazing; that there never had been a time since 1932 that he had quit using what he called his “Section 46”; i. e., the land down to the fence in question.
Hanson repeatedly testified that he regarded this south fence to be his south line, the line between Sections 46 and 3. He intended to include it within his fence and use it. He said he didn’t own Section 3 and did not claim it but, “I’m going to claim what is in my fence.”
“Q: You are going to do that [claim it] even if it is in Section 3 ?
“A: Sure, it’s been there for 60 years.
“That fence has been there all my life, ever since I was 10 years old. I suppose— I supposed it was my property. * * * I claim all of 46, you bet’che.”
*945Q; * * * Insofar as this tract of land is concerned that you call 46, what do you claim * * * ?”
“A: I claim all that is inside my fence. * * * I run stock on it and maintained the fences, and I figured it was mine. * * * ”
When he repaired his south fence he knew what section he was in; “I knew it was mine, yes.”
“Q: Did you know whether any part of it might include a part of Sec. 3?
“A: No sir.
“Q: Did it make any difference to you ?
“A: No it didn’t it was my fence line.
“Q: Are you claiming all of Section 46 whether it’s in your fence or not?
“A: I’m claiming all that is in my fence. * * * I’m claiming what is inside, what is inside that fence.”
Clyde Berry the Hanson’s tenant from 1932 to 1952, testified that he was familiar with the land from the highway to the north down to the south fence “that we call Section 46.” He had worked the land 20 years. He regarded the land north of the fence as Hanson’s land, and the land south of the fence as belonging to the Nunns. The fence had never been changed in the 20 years he had been on the place. The general reputation in the community was that Mr. Hanson [Senior] owned from the highway at the north of Section 46 down to that fence; and that it was Bud Hanson’s “since he got it.” He never heard anything to the contrary until Mr. Butler showed up [in 1962]. The fences were there before he took the lease in 1932. He didn’t know who put them up.
The person who had actually occupied the land in Section 3 south of the Hanson fence was Jack Cook, a tenant. He had worked 9 sections of land in the area including Section 3. He had been familiar with the Hanson land 35 or 40 years. He was familiar with the south line of Bud Hanson’s place. He had worked the land south of the fence from January of 1951 to 1963 when Butler took over. He had seen Bud Hanson put new posts between the old posts, and some additional stakes in between. “It was a net fence with 3 barbed wires over the top.” During the years he worked the Nunn place, the Hanson place, referred to as Section 46, was always in use. The general reputation in the community was that the property from the highway at the north down to that fence was “The Hanson Place.” He had never heard of it belonging to anyone else, and he had worked the land 12 or 13 years.
In our opinion, the above is at least “some evidence” of adverse possession and a claim of right that the Hansons claimed everything within their fence, including the land in question. Sanders v. Worthington, 382 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Sup.1964); Catching v. Bogart, 138 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Civ.App. 1940, writ refused); Pasha v. Schell, 229 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.Civ.App.1950, writ refused) ; Wilburn v. Abercrombie, 125 S.W. 2d 408 (Tex.Civ.App.1939, writ refused); Major v. Meyers, 111 S.W.2d 1184 (Tex.Civ.App.1937, no writ).
We agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that the fence between Sections 46 and 3 was not a “casual fence” under Orsborn v. Deep Rock Oil Corp., 153 Tex. 281, 267 S.W.2d 781 (1954). It is true that there is no testimony as to who built the fence. There is no testimony that the elder Hanson, who was dead at the time of trial, did not build it; and his tenant, Clyde Berry, testified that the fence, which joined with other fences to make the enclosure, was there when he went into possession in 1932 and had been there ever since. Bud Hanson testified, as set out above, to the changing of the fence to a “net fence” in 1934, and his putting new posts around the ranch, including the fence in question, in the period between 1949 and 1952.
While the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals adequately distinguishes the Ors-born case, we might emphasize these ele*946ments: in Orsborn, cattle only occasionally strayed down to the 57 acres in question, whereas here, there was testimony that this land was constantly used for grazing. In Orsborn between the land unquestionably owned and that claimed by adverse possession, there was a 60 acre tract, unfenced, that belonged to the State of Texas; so the adverse possessor had to skip an unfenced tract to claim the 57 acres. Here the tracts are contiguous and were operated as a unit. In Orsborn, the adverse possessor simply made use of the fence somebody else built. Here, as set out above, the character of the fence was changed to a “net fence” and new posts put between each old post which would certainly be evidence that Hanson had made it his fence. And finally, the undisputed evidence, not only from Hanson, but from the tenants on both sides of the fence (Jack Cook and Clyde Berry) was that this fence was Hanson’s fence, and that the general reputation in the community was that the property down to that fence was Hanson’s property.
We turn now to the effect of Hanson’s affidavit of December 28, 1962. It was gratuitously executed. Butler said he explained that there was an encroachment and drew Hanson a little map. Hanson denied that Butler made this explanation or drew him any map. He said that Butler, a stranger to him, came to him to say that he was buying the surface of Section 3 and needed the affidavit to get a bank loan.
The affidavit was, of course, admissible on the question of Hanson’s claim to the land within the fence; and, under the trial court’s charge, it stopped the running of limitations. It was for the jury to determine whether Hanson, under his testimony set out above, had claimed the land as his own under a claim of right for a period of 10 years or more prior to December 1962.
On the other hand, if title by limitations had already been perfected in Hanson, the affidavit would not serve the purpose of a conveyance of Hanson’s title or defeat his title by limitations. The latest
opinion of this Court on this point is Republic National Bank of Dallas v. Stetson, 390 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Sup.1965). In that case, the adverse possessor, after the running of the period for title by adverse possession, signed a written acknowledgment of tenancy ; i. e., that he had held the land as the tenant of the true owner, Wirt Davis; that he was not then occupying, and never had occupied or claimed any lands in that county adversely to the claim of Wirt Davis; that he knew of no one who had asserted any such claim against Wirt Davis; arid that he “makes no claim to any right, title or interest to any part” of the land in controversy.
After carefully reviewing the authorities, this Court, quoting from an earlier opinion, summarized the rule as follows:
“A limitation title once consummated, is as full and absolute as any other perfect title, and it is not lost by a subsequent oral statement by the limitation owner that he never intended to claim by limitations.” 390 S.W.2d 257 at 260.
Since the statement in Stetson was a written statement, as was the case in other opinions cited in Stetson, the above rule applies to a written statement; and it applies to the Hanson affidavit.
One point remains: there are approximately 7.34 acres of land in the northwest corner of Section 3 which are outside of Hanson’s fence. Hanson did not, and does not, claim it; but for some reason, it was included in the description of the land as to which Butler “took nothing.” It was agreed by counsel for Hanson on oral argument before this Court that the judgment of the trial court should be reformed to exclude this 7.34 acres. The Court of Civil Appeals declined to make this correction. Accordingly, the judgments of the courts below are reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to reform its judgment so as to exclude this 7.34 acres.
Dissenting opinion by SMITH, J.*947APPENDIX
⅞⅞¾,/-£/ .t, g