Court Opinion

ID: 9832657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:05:20.442185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:49.944958
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal by the Citizens’ National Bank because its appeal bond to this court was filed more than twenty days after the adjournment of the term of court at which the judgment was rendered was not discussed in our opinion on original hearing, and it is now urged in a motion for rehearing by appellee Lindsay National Bank.
The record shows that the appellant Louis Lipshitz did file his appeal bond within the time required by the statute, and that his appeal was duly perfected. As noted in the opinion on original hearing, the judgment in favor of the appellee bank against the Citizens’ National Bank and Louis Lip-shitz was joint, and the judgment in favor oi the Citizens’ National Bank over against Louis Lipshitz was dependent upon the judg*878ment rendered in favor of the Lindsay National Bank. It thus appears that the rights of the parties were so intermingled, interdependent, and involved that a reversal of the judgment against Lipshitz would necessarily require a reversal of the judgment against the Citizens’ National Bank also, even though no appeal had been prosecuted by it, in order that the rights of all the parties might be fully protected ip a final judgment. Many decisions might be cited upholding that general rule of decision. See volume 3, Texas Jurisprudence, p. 1114; Roberts v. Fowler (Tex. Civ. App.) 297 S. W. 339; Thompson v. Kelley, 100 Tex. 536, 101 S. W. 1074; Hamilton v. Prescott, 73 Tex. 565, 11 S. W. 548; Fidelity Oil Co. v. Swinney, 254 S. W. 137, by this court, speaking through Chief Justice Conner, and other decisions there cited.
Accordingly, thfe motion for rehearing is overruled.