Beeson v. Lloyds Southwest Insurers

Court of Appeals of Texas

Beeson v. Lloyds Southwest Insurers

60 S.W.2d 1047, 1933 Tex. App. LEXIS 783

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 10, 1933

DocketNo. 7857

StatusPublished

This text of 60 S.W.2d 1047 (Beeson v. Lloyds Southwest Insurers) 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

Beeson v. Lloyds Southwest Insurers, 60 S.W.2d 1047, 1933 Tex. App. LEXIS 783 (Tex. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

BLAIR, Justice.

Appellees suggest that this court is without jurisdiction in this case because the judgment appealed from is not a final judgment, but as appears from its face it is merely an interlocutory judgment. The decree shows that a judgment by default was rendered against three of the defendants with writ of inquiry; and that upon a hearing of the writ of inquiry the amount of the judgment was determined as against these three defendants; but the judgment further provided as follows; “And it is further ordered by the court that this cause remain on the docket * * * f01. a determination of the rights existing between the plaintiff Lloyd Southwest Insurers and said remaining defendants Elliott Jones and Lloyds America.”

It is manifest from the foregoing recitals of the judgment that the case against all defendants was not concluded, and the law is well settled that a default judgment against some of the defendants is not final until the conclusion of the case against their code-fendants. Buttrill v. Occidental Life Ins, Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S.W.(2d) 636; Merchants’ Produce Co. v-. Culpepper (Tex. Civ. App.) 247 S. W. 651.

The appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

BLAIR, Justice.

Appellees suggest that this court is without jurisdiction in this case because the judgment appealed from is not a final judgment, but as appears from its face it is merely an interlocutory judgment. The decree shows that a judgment by default was rendered against three of the defendants with writ of inquiry; and that upon a hearing of the writ of inquiry the amount of the judgment was determined as against these three defendants; but the judgment further provided as follows; “And it is further ordered by the court that this cause remain on the docket * * * f01. a determination of the rights existing between the plaintiff Lloyd Southwest Insurers and said remaining defendants Elliott Jones and Lloyds America.”

It is manifest from the foregoing recitals of the judgment that the case against all defendants was not concluded, and the law is well settled that a default judgment against some of the defendants is not final until the conclusion of the case against their code-fendants. Buttrill v. Occidental Life Ins, Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S.W.(2d) 636; Merchants’ Produce Co. v-. Culpepper (Tex. Civ. App.) 247 S. W. 651.

The appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.W.2d 1047, 1933 Tex. App. LEXIS 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beeson-v-lloyds-southwest-insurers-texapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack