F. & T. DEVELOPMENT CO. v. Morris

Court of Appeals of Texas

F. & T. DEVELOPMENT CO. v. Morris

248 S.W.2d 233

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 4, 1952

Docket15340

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 248 S.W.2d 233 (F. & T. DEVELOPMENT CO. v. Morris) 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

F. & T. DEVELOPMENT CO. v. Morris, 248 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

CULVER, Justice.

Suit was brought in district court of Harris County by Morris and wife, ap-pellees, against F. & T. Development Company, Inc., and Commercial Title Company, seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, and, in the alternative, for liquidated damages. F. & T. Development Company moved for summary judgment, and appeals from the trial court’s action in denying that motion.

For a determination of this cause, it is only necessary to pass upon the second point presented, namely, that the trial court erred in overruling defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

While there are no reported cases in Texas so far as we know on this point, it is to be observed that Rule 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, follows almost identically the language of the Federal Rule 56 for Civil Procedure, 28.U.S.C.A., and the Federal courts have held adversely to appellant’s contention.

The refusal of a summary judgment is interlocutory in character and is not a final judgment, because the case still remains to be tried, bio appeal, therefore, *234 would lie from such refusal. Jones v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 123; Morgenstern Chemical Co., Inc. v. Schering Corporation, 3 Cir., 181 F.2d 160; and Hiroshi Muramato v. Blidberg Rothchild Co., Inc., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 131.

Inferentially, the trial court in this case found that there were one or more disputed issues of fact and held the case for trial on its merits. The appellant has not been harmed, even though he may be correct in his position that there are no fact issues, on which point we express no opinion, as he will have his right of appeal should the case ultimately be decided' against him in the trial court.

Being of the opinion that the appellant has no right of appeal from the denial of motion for summary judgment, this appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

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

CULVER, Justice.

Suit was brought in district court of Harris County by Morris and wife, ap-pellees, against F. & T. Development Company, Inc., and Commercial Title Company, seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, and, in the alternative, for liquidated damages. F. & T. Development Company moved for summary judgment, and appeals from the trial court’s action in denying that motion.

For a determination of this cause, it is only necessary to pass upon the second point presented, namely, that the trial court erred in overruling defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

While there are no reported cases in Texas so far as we know on this point, it is to be observed that Rule 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, follows almost identically the language of the Federal Rule 56 for Civil Procedure, 28.U.S.C.A., and the Federal courts have held adversely to appellant’s contention.

The refusal of a summary judgment is interlocutory in character and is not a final judgment, because the case still remains to be tried, bio appeal, therefore, *234 would lie from such refusal. Jones v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 123; Morgenstern Chemical Co., Inc. v. Schering Corporation, 3 Cir., 181 F.2d 160; and Hiroshi Muramato v. Blidberg Rothchild Co., Inc., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 131.

Inferentially, the trial court in this case found that there were one or more disputed issues of fact and held the case for trial on its merits. The appellant has not been harmed, even though he may be correct in his position that there are no fact issues, on which point we express no opinion, as he will have his right of appeal should the case ultimately be decided' against him in the trial court.

Being of the opinion that the appellant has no right of appeal from the denial of motion for summary judgment, this appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

United States v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Tri-Continental Financial Corporation, A. C. Allyn and Company, Incorporated, American Transportation Enterprises, Inc., Equitable Securities Corporation, Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades & Co., the Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., and John W. Clarke & Co., Helene Glenmore v. John I. Ahern

276 F.2d 525 (Second Circuit, 1960)

United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

276 F.2d 525 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)

Bell v. Davis

287 S.W.2d 733 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)

City of San Antonio v. Crane

275 S.W.2d 724 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)

Dyche v. Simmons

264 S.W.2d 208 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.W.2d 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-t-development-co-v-morris-texapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack