Case Name: CLAY v. MARMAR
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-05-01
Citations: 156 S.W. 1125
Docket Number: 
Parties: CLAY v. MARMAR.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 156
Pages: 1125–1126

Head Matter:
CLAY v. MARMAR.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
May 1, 1913.
On Rehearing, May 22, 1913.)
1. Trover and Conversion (§ 22 ) — Action— Defenses.
In an action to recover possession of a diamond stud or its value, where it appeared that plaintiff, on default of defendant’s deceased husband, for whom he was surety, was compelled to pay certain notes, and that the husband had pledged the stud to plaintiff, and afterwards procured it from him to wear on a certain occasion, and died without having returned the same, as he had promised to do, a plea that plaintiff had in his possession other personal property, to which defendant was entitled, and asking for judgment therefor, stated no cause of action against the plaintiff.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trover and Conversion, Cent. Dig. §§ 152-162, 167-169; Dec. Dig. § 22. ]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 80 ) — Action for Conversion — Disposition oe All Issues.
In an action to recover possession of a diamond stud or its value, alleging a lien thereon and its conversion by the defendant, with a plea in reconvention that plaintiff had in his possession personal property of greater value, to which defendant was entitled, and a claim for damage for the same or its valué, a judgment entered only on the plaintiff’s claim for relief disposed of all the issues, even assuming the plea in intervention to have been sufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ é29, 432, 433, 450, 456, 457, 494-509; Dec. Dig. § 80. ]
3. Trover and Conversion (§ 40 ) — Action —Sufficiency of Evidence.
Evidence in an action to recover possession of a diamond stud or its value, alleging a lien thereon and its conversion by defendant, held sufficient to sustain a finding that defendant had converted it.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trover and Conversion, Cent. Dig. §§ 232-244; Dec. Dig. § 40. ]
Appeal from Smith County Court; Jesse F. Odom, Judge.
Action by K. Mairmar against Mrs. T. J. Clay. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Brice & Beaird, of Tyler, for appellant. Lasseter, Mcllwaine & Gentry, of Tyler, for appellee.
For other ca-ses see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HODGES, J.
The appellee instituted this suit against the appellant to recover a diamond stud or its value. It is alleged that ap-pellee had a lien on the diamond, and that it had been converted by the appellant. Appellant answered-by a general denial, and also pleaded in reconvention that appellee had •in his. possession personal property, to which she was entitled, aggregating $850, and asked a judgment for the same or its value.
The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff in the suit, but the court entered a judgment only on the plaintiff's claim for relief, as set forth in his original petition. No disposition was made of the plea in re-convention filed by the appellant. In that state of the record, this court is without jurisdiction; no final judgment baying been rendered from which an appeal can be prose, cuted. In order to make the judgment final, the plea in reconvention should have been disposed of. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ft. Worth Street Ry. Co., 75 Tex. 83, 12 S. W. 977; Carothers v. Holloman, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 131, 75 S. W. 1084.
The appeal is dismissed.