Title: Whatley v. King
Citation: 249 S.W.2d 57
Docket Number: A-3557
State: Texas
Issuer: Texas Supreme Court
Date: May 14, 1952

249 S.W.2d 57 (1952) WHATLEY v. KING et ux. No. A-3557. Supreme Court of Texas. May 14, 1952. C. O. McMillan, Stephenville, Burks &amp; McNeil, Lubbock, for petitioner. Hawkins &amp; Dean, Breckenridge, for respondents. SMITH, Justice. This suit was originally brought by petitioner, C. B. Whatley, against R. H. King and Evalyn King to recover upon a written contract by which the latter agreed to sell and the former agreed to buy a ranch and certain personal property, including cattle thereon. The contract and issues involved in the original trial are fully stated in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, 236 S.W.2d 186, and in the interest of brevity will not be repeated here. It is sufficient to say that both parties appealed from the judgment entered by the trial court, which judgment was affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part, for another trial. On August 3, 1951, after the mandate had issued, and at a time when the case was pending in the trial court for retrial, the respondents filed a motion in that court to require petitioner to deliver all of the personal property, including the cattle and increase thereof, to the respondents at their ranch in Scurry County. The motion recites that petitioner was in possession of said personal property by virtue of a writ of sequestration he had caused to be issued on December 5, 1949, and a replevy bond filed on December 17, 1949. The motion contains the following prayer: The trial court, after hearing evidence, granted the motion on October 2, 1951. The pertinent portion of the order involved in this appeal reads as follows: From this order, petitioner, Whatley, duly perfected his appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eleventh Supreme Judicial District. Thereafter, respondents filed and presented to that court a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order entered by the trial court was not a final judgment and, therefore, was not "appealable". The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the motion and dismissed the appeal. 245 S.W.2d 337. This court has granted a writ of error. The petitioner's contention that the order issued by the trial court is, in effect, a mandatory injunction is sustained. The order contains all the elements of finality so far as petitioner is concerned. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas v. State ex rel. Cobb, Tex.Com.App., 135 Tex. 25, 137 S.W.2d 993. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed, and cause remanded to that court for reinstatement and consideration upon its merits. SMEDLEY, J., dissenting. SMEDLEY, Justice. I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority, being convinced that the order from which the appeal was taken was not a final judgment and that the Court of Civil Appeals made correct disposition of the case.