Court Opinion

ID: 9681896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:00:44.872924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.456378
License: Public Domain

McGILL, Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the disposition of this case. I think it is in direct conflict with the holding of the Fort Worth Court of Civil Appeals, in Richards v. Smith citation, 239 S.W.2d 724. The sole basis for that holding as I see it, was that the cause of action against Smith and Gregg was severable, and neither was a necessary party in the suit brought against the other. The opinion here seems to admit that the cause of action against the two defendants is severable and the disposition is grounded on the basis that there was in fact no severance. There was no severance in Richards v. Smith, as I understand it.
I think the proposed disposition is also in conflict with the case of Dunn v. Tillman, by the Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals, 255 S.W.2d 933. While the question apparently was not raised in the opinion, yet what was actually done is in conflict with the disposition proposed.
I think that the motion to dismiss the appeal should be overruled and the case disposed of on its merits, and therefore respectfully dissent.