Chapman. v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Texas

Chapman. v. Warden

153 S.W. 937, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 1

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 9, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 153 S.W. 937 (Chapman. v. Warden) 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

Chapman. v. Warden, 153 S.W. 937, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 1 (Tex. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

SPEER, J.

The appeal in this case is dismissed for the reason that there is no final judgment contained in the record. The decree following the verdict of the jury finding in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $150 is that “it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiff, T. F. Warden, do have and recover from the defendant, Van Chapman, the sum of $150 and all costs in this behalf expended, for which let execution issue” ; but it nowhere disposes of appellant’s cross-action to recover for the value of the well casing and rope lost This issue was distinctly raised by the pleadings and was submitted by the court in his charge. The findings of the jury, generally, for the plaintiff may have been, sufficient disposition of the cross-action; but the judgment, to be final, should have followed up the verdict and disposed of such issue. Riddle v. Bear-den, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 97, 80 S. W. 1061, and authorities there cited.

• Appeal dismissed.

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

SPEER, J.

The appeal in this case is dismissed for the reason that there is no final judgment contained in the record. The decree following the verdict of the jury finding in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $150 is that “it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiff, T. F. Warden, do have and recover from the defendant, Van Chapman, the sum of $150 and all costs in this behalf expended, for which let execution issue” ; but it nowhere disposes of appellant’s cross-action to recover for the value of the well casing and rope lost This issue was distinctly raised by the pleadings and was submitted by the court in his charge. The findings of the jury, generally, for the plaintiff may have been, sufficient disposition of the cross-action; but the judgment, to be final, should have followed up the verdict and disposed of such issue. Riddle v. Bear-den, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 97, 80 S. W. 1061, and authorities there cited.

• Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.W. 937, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-warden-texapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack