Holley v. Duke

Court of Appeals of Texas

Holley v. Duke

96 S.W. 1090, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 529, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 144

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 23, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 S.W. 1090 (Holley v. Duke) 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

Holley v. Duke, 96 S.W. 1090, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 529, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 144 (Tex. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

SPEER, Associate Justice.

We have no jurisdiction to determine the merits of the controversy presented on this appeal, since there was no final judgment rendered in the cause in the County Court. The .suit was instituted by appellee against appellant on a stated account, and contemporaneous with the institution of the suit an attachment was sued out and levied upon property alleged to belong to appellant. Appellant reconvened for damages not only against appellee but also asked to have the sureties on appellee’s attachment bond cited, and prayed for judgment against them also on such bond. The sureties answered, but the judgment nowhere disposes of these parties. Until the judgment does dispose of all the issues and all the parties, it is not such final judgment as will support an appeal to this court. (Stewart v. Lenoir, 72 S. W. Rep., 619; Riddle v. Bearden, 10 Texas Ct. Rep., 346, and authorities cited in these cases.) Appeal dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

SPEER, Associate Justice.

We have no jurisdiction to determine the merits of the controversy presented on this appeal, since there was no final judgment rendered in the cause in the County Court. The .suit was instituted by appellee against appellant on a stated account, and contemporaneous with the institution of the suit an attachment was sued out and levied upon property alleged to belong to appellant. Appellant reconvened for damages not only against appellee but also asked to have the sureties on appellee’s attachment bond cited, and prayed for judgment against them also on such bond. The sureties answered, but the judgment nowhere disposes of these parties. Until the judgment does dispose of all the issues and all the parties, it is not such final judgment as will support an appeal to this court. (Stewart v. Lenoir, 72 S. W. Rep., 619; Riddle v. Bearden, 10 Texas Ct. Rep., 346, and authorities cited in these cases.) Appeal dismissed.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 S.W. 1090, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 529, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holley-v-duke-texapp-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack