Court Opinion

ID: 9828611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:33:21.39463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.040834
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Neither party seems to desire a judgment of dismissal for want of a final judgment below. Plaintiff in error complains of the order entered in his motion for rehearing. Defendant in error has filed no motion for rehearing, but has evidenced her view that the judgment was final by procuring and preparing same. The practical difference between an order of dismissal and one of reversal with a remand for further proceedings is negligible in this proceeding. It is obvious on the face of the record that necessary parties were omitted! Plaintiff in error was the only defendant in the court below, but the judgment undertook to set aside in its entirety and hold for naught a former judgment against George W. Cunningham et al. It also canceled and removed, as a cloud upon the title to certain lands, deeds as follows: One from R. W. Edwards, sheriff, to Lula B. Stu-ard; another from Lula B. Stuard to George W. Cunningham; and still another from George W. Cunningham to the Guaranty State Bank of San Angelo. It is elementary that no effective decree could be rendered against these persons who were not parties to this suit, and that therefore the 'judgment, if in fact it were a final judgment, should be reversed for want of necessary parties.
The grounds for dismissing the appeal are not so certain as are those for reversing the judgment and remanding the cause. Upon another trial all questions' of the finality of the judgment will doubtless be removed. We have therefore concluded to set aside our former order dismissing the appeal and to enter in lieu thereof an order reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the cause for further proceedings.
The motion of plaintiff in error for rehearing is accordingly granted-in part.