In Tex-Wis Co. v. Johnson, 534 S.W.2d 895, 901, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 235 (Tex. 1976), Alexander lost title to 96 acres of a 150-acre tract in foreclosure proceedings. He, and after him his family, nevertheless continued to occupy the entire 150-acre tract for 34 years, from 1921 to 1955, without any intervening claim by the record titleholder. Id. at 898 n.2. The Court held that this extended period of time was evidence from which the jury could infer notice of repudiation to the record titleholder. Id. at 902. The Court explained that its holding was an application of rules regarding circumstantial evidence: [Our holding] is nothing more than an application of the rule of circumstantial evidence that the existence of certain facts tends to support a reasonable inference that the record owner has been put on notice that the tenancy has been repudiated. To this extent, both satisfy the rationale for requiring such notice. Where a tenancy relationship has arisen, the landlord is normally justified in assuming that the tenant's use of the premises is permissive and in recognition of the landlord's title. However, under certain circumstances, this assumption ceases to be justifiable. Thus acts which are inconsistent with the original use of the property may be sufficient to put the owner on notice that the tenancy has been repudiated. The same has been held to be true in cases of long-continued possession by the tenant under claim of ownership where the landlord has failed to assert any claim. Under such circumstances, the jury may find that continued reliance on the tenancy by the landlord was unreasonable and unwarranted. Id. at 901.