Case Name: ST. LOUIS, S. F. & T. RY. CO. v. TUDLE et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-11-18
Citations: 171 S.W. 797
Docket Number: No. 1296
Parties: ST. LOUIS, S. F. & T. RY. CO. v. TUDLE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 171
Pages: 797–798

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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.