Case Name: BENGE v. SLEDGE et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-10-15
Citations: 132 S.W. 873
Docket Number: 
Parties: BENGE v. SLEDGE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 132
Pages: 873–874

Head Matter:
BENGE v. SLEDGE et al.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 15, 1910.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 79 ) — Decisions Reviewable — Finality oe Determination.
To be final and appealable a judgment must dispose of all the issues as to all the parties, and a judgment entered in favor of three of four plaintiffs; but in no wise disposing of the fourth plaintiff, is not final.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 48A493; Dec. Dig. § 79. ]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 79 ) — Decisions Reviewable — Finality op Determination.
A partnership not being a legal entity and being empowered to sue and be sued only in the names of its individual members, a judgment in a suit in which a partnership is a party to be final must either expressly, or by fair implication, dispose of all the members of the plaintiff or defendant firm.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 484r-493; Dee. Dig. § 79. ]
Appeal from Collingsworth County Court; J. K. Duke, Judge.
Action by T. B. Sledge and others against T. E. Benge. Judgment for plaintiffs, arid defendant appeals.
Dismissed.
Lackey & Cocke and Theodore Mack, for appellant. R. H. Templeton and Stovall Johnson, for appellees.
For other cases see same topic and section NTJMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SPEER, J.
Appellant has suggested that there is no final judgment of the county court of Collingsworth county in this cause, and prays that the appeal therefore be dismissed.
The suit appears to be one instituted by T. B. Sledge, Frank Gist, W. A. Walker, and W. A. Lawrence against T. E. Benge to recover a sum of money within the jurisdiction of the county court. The verdict of the jury before whom the case was tried was in plaintiffs' favor for the sum of $355. Upon this verdict the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs W. A. Walker, T. B. Sledge, and W. A. Lawrence, but the judgment in no manner disposes of the plaintiff Gist. This is not a final judgment, since, to be final, the judgment should dispose of all the issues as to all the parties. Williams v. Bell, on rehearing, 116 S. W. 837.
The judgment declares that the three plaintiffs mentioned constitute the Panhandle Land Company. The petition upon which the recovery was had alleged that T. B. Sledge, Prank Gist, W. A. Walker, and J. W. Wilkins, doing business under the firm name and style of the Panhandle Land Company, in whose favor the cause of action originally had accrued, had transferred the cause of action to the plaintiffs; but it contains no allegation that the plaintiffs are doing business under the style of the old firm. But grant that it did, it does not follow that the judgment disposing of the Panhandle Land Company disposes of the individual plaintiffs. It is well settled in this state that a copartnership is not a legal entity and can sue and be sued only in the names of its individual members, so that at last the judgment in order to be final must either expressly, or by fair implication, dispose of all the members of the plaintiff or defendant firm. Frank v. Tatum, 87 Tex. 204, 25 S. W. 409; Glasscock v. Price, 92 Tex. 271, 47 S. W. 965; Griffin v. Terry, 124 S. W. 115; Williams Land Company v. Crull, 125 S. W. 339.
This appeal is therefore dismissed, and the costs taxed against the appellant