Case ID: sw_260/html/0907-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McINTOSH v. BARRETT et al.
    (No. 1624.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
    April 3, 1924.)
    Appeal and error <$=>82(3) — Order vacating default judgment of county court interlocutory and not appealable.
    In view of Rev. St. art. 2078, providing for appeal or writ of error from “every final judgment” of certain lower courts, an order of a county court setting aside default judgment, being interlocutory, is not appealable.
    Appeal from Eastland County Court at Law; J. H. Jones, Judge.
    Suit by, Earl J. McIntosh against A. P. Barrett and others. Judgment by default was set aside, and plaintiff appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Ow^n & Owen, of Eastland, for appellant.
    Conner & McRae, of Eastland, and Fred S. Dudley, of Port Worth, for appellees.
   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.