Batson v. Bentley

Court of Appeals of Texas

Batson v. Bentley

295 S.W. 316, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 398

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 11, 1927

DocketNo. 2775. [fn*]

StatusPublished

This text of 295 S.W. 316 (Batson v. Bentley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Batson v. Bentley, 295 S.W. 316, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 398 (Tex. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, C. J.

This is a suit by the appellant, Batson, against W. E. Bentley and his wife, Mrs. Bertie Bentley, and Marion Reynolds. The nature of plaintiff’s suit is to recover an interest in oil and gas royalties which he alleges he had earned and acquired in virtue of his services as a broker in disposing of said royalties for Bentley and his wife under written contracts, which conveyed to him said interests in certain real estate owned by Bentley and wife. Reynolds is made a party defendant upon the allegation that he has possession of the contracts, and with notice has acquired the interest to which plaintiff is entitled. In the alternative plaintiff prays for damages, for breach of the contract, and for the value of his services. The defendants filed a joint answer.

The case was tried to the court without a jury, and the judgment fails to dispose of Mrs. Bentley, either directly or by implication. Because of the failure of the judgment to dispose of her and the rights asserted by plaintiff against her, the judgment is not final, and therefore will not support this appeal. Anderson v. Claxton (Tex. Civ. App.) 291 S. W. 960; Reynolds v. Gilbert (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 330; Gathings v. Robertson (Tex. Com. App.) 276 S. W. 218; Mendoza v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R., 94 Tex. 650, 62 S. W. 418 ; 1 Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Scott, 78 Tex. 360, 14 S. W. 791; Liliensterne v. Lewis (Tex. Sup.) 12 S. W. 750; Whitaker v. Gee, 61 Tex. 217.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

1

Reported in full in the Southwestern Reporter; not reported in full in Texas Reports.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HALL, C. J.

This is a suit by the appellant, Batson, against W. E. Bentley and his wife, Mrs. Bertie Bentley, and Marion Reynolds. The nature of plaintiff’s suit is to recover an interest in oil and gas royalties which he alleges he had earned and acquired in virtue of his services as a broker in disposing of said royalties for Bentley and his wife under written contracts, which conveyed to him said interests in certain real estate owned by Bentley and wife. Reynolds is made a party defendant upon the allegation that he has possession of the contracts, and with notice has acquired the interest to which plaintiff is entitled. In the alternative plaintiff prays for damages, for breach of the contract, and for the value of his services. The defendants filed a joint answer.

The case was tried to the court without a jury, and the judgment fails to dispose of Mrs. Bentley, either directly or by implication. Because of the failure of the judgment to dispose of her and the rights asserted by plaintiff against her, the judgment is not final, and therefore will not support this appeal. Anderson v. Claxton (Tex. Civ. App.) 291 S. W. 960; Reynolds v. Gilbert (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 330; Gathings v. Robertson (Tex. Com. App.) 276 S. W. 218; Mendoza v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R., 94 Tex. 650, 62 S. W. 418 ; 1 Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Scott, 78 Tex. 360, 14 S. W. 791; Liliensterne v. Lewis (Tex. Sup.) 12 S. W. 750; Whitaker v. Gee, 61 Tex. 217.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

1

Reported in full in the Southwestern Reporter; not reported in full in Texas Reports.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 S.W. 316, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batson-v-bentley-texapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack