Case ID: sw_171/html/0797-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEVY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ST. LOUIS, S. F. & T. RY. CO. v. TUDLE et al.
    (No. 1296.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    Nov. 18, 1914.
    Rehearing Denied Dee. 3, 1914.)
    Appeal and Ebeob (§ 79) — Judgments Ap-pealable — “Final Judgment.”
    A judgment which did not dispose of a party to the suit is not a “final judgment,” and no appeal therefrom will lie.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 484-493; Dec. Dig. § 79.
    
    For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Final Decree or Judgment.]
    
      Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; W. M. Peck, Judge.
    Action between James Tudle and others and the St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Company. There was a judgment for the former, and the latter appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    • Andrews, Ball & Streetman, of Ft. Worth, and Head, Smith, Maxey & Head, of Sherman, for appellant. J. L. Cobb and Jones & Hassell, all of Sherman, for appellees.
    
      
      Kor other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   LEVY, J.

The judgment in this case does not dispose of Hallie Tudle, who was a party to the suit. As there is no final judgment, as we conclude, this court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Davis v. Martin, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 62, 53 S. W. 599.

Appeal dismissed.