DocketNumber: No. 4276.
Citation Numbers: 56 S.W.2d 1094
Judges: BLALOCK, Chief Justice (after stating the case as above).
Filed Date: 12/23/1932
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
We find that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this writ of error, and to consider the errors assigned. No disposition was made in the judgment, or otherwise, of the claims of Eugene Cobb and Bertha Cobb, two of the plaintiffs below. Eugene Cobb was not mentioned in the court's charge, the verdict of the jury, or the judgment of the court, and there is nothing in the said judgment from which it could be construed *Page 1095
as having disposed of or adjudicated the claims of Eugene Cobb and Bertha Cobb to an interest in the subject-matter of the law suit. A judgment which does not dispose of the whole matter in controversy as to all litigating parties is not a final judgment. Havard v. Carter Kelley Lbr. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.)
The court instructed a verdict against Bertha Cobb, plaintiff, and such verdict was returned; but no disposition was made in express terms or by implication of the claims or rights of this party litigant. It thus appears that the judgment is not only at variance with the jury verdict in this respect, but it is made to affirmatively appear that Bertha Cobb had not been dismissed, and that no adjudication was had as to her. Articles 2211 and 2209, R.S. 1925; Turner-Cummings Hardwood Co. v. Lumber Co. (Tex.Civ.App.)
We have concluded that the judgment complained of is not a final judgment, and the present writ of error is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and costs are taxed against plaintiff in error.