General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bodenheim

Court of Appeals of Texas

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bodenheim

37 S.W.2d 312

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 23, 1930·No. No. 3812.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

WILLSON, O. J.

(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

WILLSON, O. J.

(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.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bodenheim, 37 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

37 S.W.2d 312 (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bodenheim) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related