McIntosh v. Barrett

260 S.W. 907, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 310
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 3, 1924
DocketNo. 1624.
StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.W. 907 (McIntosh v. Barrett) 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
McIntosh v. Barrett, 260 S.W. 907, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 310 (Tex. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

HARPER, C. J.

The appellant brought suit against Prank Day, Aaron Everett, C. Y. Lyman, J. A. Pollard, and A. P. Barrett in county court at law, Eastland county (No. 8672), and at the January term, 1923, took judgment by default.

Thereafter the above defendants filed their petition to set said judgment aside and grant a new trial. No. 3725. At the next term of court, March, 1923, after a hearing before the court the judgment in No. 8672 was “set aside and held for naught,” and this appeal is from the latter order. This order being interlocutory, not final, there is no provision of law authorizing an appeal.

Article 2078, Revised Statutes, reads:

“An appeal or writ of error may be taken to> the court of Civil Appeals from every final judgment of the district court in civil cases, and from every final judgment in the county court in civil eases of which the county court has original jurisdiction,” etc. Stewart v. Jones Adm’r, 9 Tex. 489; Hope v. Long (Tex. Civ. App.) 122 S. W. 40; McVey v McVey (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 781.

The appeal is therefore dismissed, because this court is without jurisdiction to entertain it.

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

Related

Fambro v. Keith
122 S.W. 40 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 S.W. 907, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintosh-v-barrett-texapp-1924.