West v. Bagby

12 Tex. 34
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 12 Tex. 34 (West v. Bagby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
West v. Bagby, 12 Tex. 34 (Tex. 1854).

Opinion

Hemphill, Ch. J.

In this case, there is a motion to dismiss the writ, for the want of a final judgment. The entry is, that the cause be dismissed, but because the jury fee hath not been paid, the same is entered as a non-suit. It is therefore 'considered by the Court that the defendant have and recover of the plaintiff all costs, &c.

This is rather a meagre entry of a final judgment; but under the rules laid down in Hanks v. Thompson, (5 Tex. R. 6,) it is sufficient. A final judgment is there defined to be, the award of the judicial consequences which the law attaches to the facts, and determines the subject matter of controversy between the parties; and it stated that an order or decree, that the plaintiff should be non-suit in the case, or that the plaintiff’s suit be dismissed for the want of prosecution, is such a [35]*35final order or decree as is subject to revision in the Supreme Court. Tested by these principles, the order, that the suit be dismissed, has such finality as would authorize its consideration in this Court; and the decree that this dismissal be entered as a non-suit, is equivalent to a decree that the plaintiff be non-suited in the case; and is, therefore, such a final judgment as the statute requires before submission of the cause to the Supreme Court. There is no error in the judgment, and it is ordered that the same be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

in Re George Green and Garlan Green
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Long v. Castle Texas Production Ltd. Partnership
426 S.W.3d 73 (Texas Supreme Court, 2014)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Granville v. Lea
336 S.W.2d 795 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Mitchell v. Perkins
266 S.W.2d 451 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Knox v. Long
228 S.W.2d 367 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Hargrove v. Insurance Investment Corp.
176 S.W.2d 744 (Texas Supreme Court, 1944)
Keystone Pipe & Supply Co. v. Liberty Refining Co.
260 S.W. 1018 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1924)
Ware v. Jones
250 S.W. 663 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1923)
Rogers v. Dickson
176 S.W. 865 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Moore-Mayfield Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
80 S.W. 881 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1904)
Hopkins v. Railroad
32 L.R.A. 354 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1896)
Henderson v. Cabell
19 S.W. 287 (Texas Supreme Court, 1892)
Howeth Bros. v. Clarke
4 Willson 112 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1890)
Linn v. Arambould
55 Tex. 611 (Texas Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Tex. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-bagby-tex-1854.