Community Natural Gas Co. v. Henley

Court of Appeals of Texas

Community Natural Gas Co. v. Henley

11 S.W.2d 206

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 5, 1928

DocketNo. 3497.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 11 S.W.2d 206 (Community Natural Gas Co. v. Henley) 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

Community Natural Gas Co. v. Henley, 11 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, O. J.

This was a suit for damages for injury to her person brought by ap-pellee Mrs. Eula Henley, joined pro forma by her husband, appellee W. N. Henley, against the city of Greenville, the Lone Star Gas Company, a corporation under the laws of Texas, and the appellant Community Natural Gas Company, a corporation under the laws of Delaware. At the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence adduced by the parties, appellant and the Lone- Star Gas Company joined each other in a motion to have the court instruct the jury to return a verdict in their favor, and the city of Greenville at the same time moved the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in its favor. The motions were granted as to the city of Green-ville and the Lone Star Gas Company, but there is nothing in the record sent to this court showing that the jury was ever so instructed or ever returned such verdicts. On findings of the jury in response to special issues submitted to them, judgment was rendered in appellees’ favor against appellant. No mention of the Lone Star Gas Company and city of Greenville was made in that judg *207 ment, and there is nothing in the record before us showing the cause to have been disposed of so far as it was between them and appellant. The judgment not being a final one, this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and therefore cannot do otherwise than dismiss it. Stewart v. Lenoir, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 470, 72 S. W. 619; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Atlantic Fruit Distributors (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 294; McKay v. Hines (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 171; Reynolds v. Gilbert (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 330; Texas Land & Loan Co. v. Winter, 93 Tex. 560, 57 S. W. 39; Wootters v. Kauffman, 67 Tex. 488, 3 S. W. 465; Batson v. Bentley (Tex. Civ. App.) 295 S. W. 316; Id. (Tex. Civ. App.) 297 S. W. 769; Southern Pacific Co., v. Ulmer (Tex. Com. App.) 286 S. W. 193.

Appeal dismissed.

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

WILLSON, O. J.

This was a suit for damages for injury to her person brought by ap-pellee Mrs. Eula Henley, joined pro forma by her husband, appellee W. N. Henley, against the city of Greenville, the Lone Star Gas Company, a corporation under the laws of Texas, and the appellant Community Natural Gas Company, a corporation under the laws of Delaware. At the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence adduced by the parties, appellant and the Lone- Star Gas Company joined each other in a motion to have the court instruct the jury to return a verdict in their favor, and the city of Greenville at the same time moved the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in its favor. The motions were granted as to the city of Green-ville and the Lone Star Gas Company, but there is nothing in the record sent to this court showing that the jury was ever so instructed or ever returned such verdicts. On findings of the jury in response to special issues submitted to them, judgment was rendered in appellees’ favor against appellant. No mention of the Lone Star Gas Company and city of Greenville was made in that judg *207 ment, and there is nothing in the record before us showing the cause to have been disposed of so far as it was between them and appellant. The judgment not being a final one, this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and therefore cannot do otherwise than dismiss it. Stewart v. Lenoir, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 470, 72 S. W. 619; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Atlantic Fruit Distributors (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 294; McKay v. Hines (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 171; Reynolds v. Gilbert (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 330; Texas Land & Loan Co. v. Winter, 93 Tex. 560, 57 S. W. 39; Wootters v. Kauffman, 67 Tex. 488, 3 S. W. 465; Batson v. Bentley (Tex. Civ. App.) 295 S. W. 316; Id. (Tex. Civ. App.) 297 S. W. 769; Southern Pacific Co., v. Ulmer (Tex. Com. App.) 286 S. W. 193.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 S.W.2d 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/community-natural-gas-co-v-henley-texapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack