James and Donna Russell v. David and Leta Stokes

Court of Appeals of Texas

James and Donna Russell v. David and Leta Stokes

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided July 3, 1996·No. 03-96-00270-CV·Published

Opinion

CV6-270

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-96-00270-CV

James and Donna Russell, Appellants

v.

David and Leta Stokes, Appellees

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 36,397, HONORABLE EDWARD S. JOHNSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

On May 9, 1996, the Clerk of this Court filed the transcript in this cause. By letter, the Clerk questioned whether an appealable order existed in this cause. Appellants and appellees have tendered responses to the letter. We will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2).

From a preliminary review of the transcript it appeared that appellants had attempted to perfect appeal from the trial-court order overruling their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in cause number 36,397. An order overruling a plea to the jurisdiction is not final and appealable. Wilbanks v. State, 519 S.W.2d 280, 280 (Tex. Civ. App.--Waco 1975, no writ). By letter, the Clerk's office informed appellants that, based on the transcript as received, there did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order in the cause.

Appellants' response to the letter discusses in detail the merits of the trial-court order and also discusses the disposition of a counterclaim. The response, however, essentially deals with actions in the justice of the peace court rather than the trial-court action in cause number 36,397. Because appellants have tendered no other orders in cause number 36,397 we conclude that they attempted to appeal from the order overruling their plea to the jurisdiction.

Appellants attempted to perfect appeal from an order which is neither final nor subject to interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal and will dismiss it. See North E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 1996). We dismiss appellants' pending motion to supplement the transcript and overrule appellants' "Motion to Stay Discovery."

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Before Justices Powers, Jones and B. A. Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 3, 1996

Do Not Publish

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

CV6-270

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-96-00270-CV

James and Donna Russell, Appellants

v.

David and Leta Stokes, Appellees

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 36,397, HONORABLE EDWARD S. JOHNSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

On May 9, 1996, the Clerk of this Court filed the transcript in this cause. By letter, the Clerk questioned whether an appealable order existed in this cause. Appellants and appellees have tendered responses to the letter. We will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2).

From a preliminary review of the transcript it appeared that appellants had attempted to perfect appeal from the trial-court order overruling their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in cause number 36,397. An order overruling a plea to the jurisdiction is not final and appealable. Wilbanks v. State, 519 S.W.2d 280, 280 (Tex. Civ. App.--Waco 1975, no writ). By letter, the Clerk's office informed appellants that, based on the transcript as received, there did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order in the cause.

Appellants' response to the letter discusses in detail the merits of the trial-court order and also discusses the disposition of a counterclaim. The response, however, essentially deals with actions in the justice of the peace court rather than the trial-court action in cause number 36,397. Because appellants have tendered no other orders in cause number 36,397 we conclude that they attempted to appeal from the order overruling their plea to the jurisdiction.

Appellants attempted to perfect appeal from an order which is neither final nor subject to interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal and will dismiss it. See North E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 1996). We dismiss appellants' pending motion to supplement the transcript and overrule appellants' "Motion to Stay Discovery."

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Before Justices Powers, Jones and B. A. Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 3, 1996

Do Not Publish

James and Donna Russell v. David and Leta Stokes, (Tex. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

James and Donna Russell v. David and Leta Stokes (James and Donna Russell v. David and Leta Stokes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related