Court Opinion

ID: 9829311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:11:23.611848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.764348
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing the appellants urge only two assignments of error against our judgment, both challenging the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the appeal.
The first point is that the judgment appealed from is void because not entered in term time. It is shown that the trial of the case was commenced in December, 1936, during the November term of the 123d district court, and that the judgment was entered on January 15, 1937. The November term of court expired December 28, 1936. But the transcript contains an order entered by the trial judge on December 26, 1936, extending the term until the conclusion of pending trials. The order extending' the term was in accord with the statute. Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1923; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Muse, 109 Tex. 352, 207 S.W. 897, 4 A.L.R. 613; Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. Cook, 122 Tex. 446, 60 S.W.2d 764; Valley Theatres, Inc., v. Fairbairn (Tex.Civ.App.) 21 S.W. 2d 1080.
The other point is that, in ordering the impounded funds paid over to the various claimants, the trial court directed payment to four persons who had not filed any pleadings or been cited as parties in the case and were therefore not before the court. And so it is contended this court is without jurisdiction to affirm the judgment.
The judgment recites that such parties appeared in person and by attorney. But if appellants’ construction of the record be accepted as correct, the judgment would not thereby be deprived of finality so as to defeat the jurisdiction of this court, as would -be the case if the judgment had failed to dispose of a party to the shit. Here under any view of the record the judgment disposed of all of the parties and is a final judgment. It simply went further and awarded a share in the funds to certain persons who were not *312shown to have been in court by any appropriate pleading. That error was one which could be complained of only by a party who suffered some injury by it. In our original opinion we held that the appellants had no interest in the funds involved in this suit. In their motion for rehearing such holding is not challenged. So, having no interest in the funds, -the appellants are in no position to urge the error.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.