General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bodenheim
This text of 37 S.W.2d 312 (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bodenheim) 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.
Opinion
(after stating the case as above).
Having determined appellee was entitled to recover of appellant a specified sum and that appellant was entitled to recover of appellee a different specified sum; the court should have set off the one sum against the other, and, having done so, should have rendered judgment for the balance in favor of the party entitled thereo. As the court did not *313 do that, the judgment is not a final one from which an appeal could be prosecuted. Article 2211, R. S. 1925; Walker v. Means, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 210, 67 S. W. 167; Eastham v. Sallis, 60 Tex. 576; Kinney v. Tel. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 222 S. W. 227. This court, therefore, can not do otherwise than dismiss the appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
37 S.W.2d 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-bodenheim-texapp-1930.