H. Sherwood, Prank Sherwood, and Lillie Sherwood-Gambs, joined by her husband, Ernest G. Gambs, appellees, as the surviving heirs of Mary Ann Sherwood, deceased, brought this suit against Walter Sherwood and others, appellants herein, to cancel two deeds conveying certain real estate, as follows: A deed dated 12th day of April, 1913, signed by Mary A. Sherwood, conveying to- Charles Sherwood, for a cash consideration of $2,500, lots in the city of San Antonio, Bexar county, and the other a deed dated the 12th day of April, 1913, signed by Mary A. Sherwood, conveying to Walter Sherwood, for a recited cash consideration, paid, of $2,100, lots in San Antonio, Bexar county.
The grounds upon which the suit is predicated were undue influence and total mental incapacity at the time to make a contract or execute valid deeds.
There is also a prayer for rents, restitution of said property to the estate of Mary A. Sherwood, deceased, and for general relief.
Appellants filed exceptions, pleas of the statute of limitations of two and four years, and responsive answers, general and special.
Walter Sherwood intervened and alleged he was the son of Prank Sherwood, deceased, and entitled to a share with Lillie Sherwood Gambs, who constitute the heirs of Prank Sherwood, deceased.
By supplemental pleading the appellees, set up in reply to the appellants the disability to sue, because of Mary A. Sherwood’s incapacity, until her death, and the minority of some of the heirs.
The ease was tried before the court without a jury, and the court rendered judgment canceling the deed's, and gave judgment for rents.
The court upon request filed findings of, facts and conclusions of law. There is also filed a statement of facts.
The first, fifth, and seventh assignments present as error the judgment of the trial court in sustaining the contentions of appel-lee and in canceling and setting aside the two deeds because not supported by the tgstimony in respect to her mental condition at the time of the execution of the several deeds.
The finding of facts by the court is very definite on that subject, to wit:
“Mary A. Sherwood was at said time of the execution of said deeds and each of them and for some time prior thereto, and subsequently thereafterwards continuously down to the date of her death, of unsound mind, that at the date of the execution of the said deeds she did not have sufficient mental capacity to comprehend arid understand the nature and extent of her property rights and was incapable of forming a rational judgment as to the disposition she should make, or was at the time making of the property described in said deeds, and did not have the mental capacity to make an independent and rational disposition of any of her property, of her own accord.”
An examination of the briefs of counsel and the statement of facts thoroughly supports the finding, and it will not be disturbed. The law is so plain and well settled in cases *556of this kind it is not necessary to cite any case in support of our conclusions.
There are various assignments insisting that the claim for rents and use of the property is barred by the statute of limitations of two and four years.
Mary A. Sherwood died on the 21st day of April, 1918. This suit appears to have been filed on the 19th 'day of October, 1918. Therefore, prior to 21st day of April, 1918, there was no statute of limitations running against her or her estate until after her death. The heirs until that event were under a disability and could not sue until then, and, as no sufficient time since has elapsed to bar the claim, it cannot be sustained. Conrad v. Hughes, 195 S. W. 1181.
These assignments are overruled.
Appellants claim by a number of assignments the court erred in rendering Judgment for rents and adjudging property to appellees and intervener in common.
The court found under the evidence that the three children and three grandchildren and intervener named were the sole heirs at 'law -of Mary A. Sherwood, deceased. Hence, the district court having jurisdiction to hear and determine this case under his findings and in response to the pleadings, the proper judgment was rendered.
We have considered all the assignments, and, finding no merit therein, they are overruled, and the judgment of the court is affirmed.