Citizens Nat. Bank of Beaumont v. Callaway
| Decision Date | 06 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 8487,8487 |
| Citation | 597 S.W.2d 465 |
| Parties | CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF BEAUMONT, Appellant, v. W. M. CALLAWAY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Thomas G. King, Beaumont, for appellant.
Anthony G. Brocato, Beaumont, for appellees.
The question presented is whether an appeal lies from an order compelling arbitration and defining the issues to be determined in the proceeding. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 225, Sec. A (1973). 1 We are of the opinion that such attempted appeal is from an interlocutory non-appealable order and now sustain plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal.
Our factual statement is made for the purpose of placing the operative facts in perspective so that we may state our views upon the jurisdictional question, and our resume shall not in any manner affect the disposition of any disputed facts which may be presented at any later hearing.
Plaintiffs are the owners and lessors of certain land and improvements, and the defendant is the lessee thereof using such premises for its banking house. According to plaintiffs' contentions, defendant exercised its option to purchase the building and fixed its estimate of the market value in accordance with the lease contract. The plaintiffs disagreed with such valuation and demanded arbitration of the single issue the market value of the premises. The defendant withdrew (or attempted to withdraw) the exercise of its option to purchase, declined to arbitrate, and plaintiffs filed their suit to compel arbitration.
After a full hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied its motion for a stay of proceedings, granted plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration, and defined the issue to be determined by the arbitrators. Defendant gave notice of appeal, filed its appeal bond, procured an order permitting it to supersede the order compelling arbitration, and filed the record in this court. The plaintiffs immediately filed their motion to dismiss the appeal contending that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal when such an appeal is not one authorized by statute or the rules.
It is apparent from our record that plaintiffs followed implicitly the procedures set out in Art. 225, Sec. A, of the Act. In essence, the defendant denied the "existence of the agreement to arbitrate", as mentioned in the statute, contending that it had not exercised its option; or, alternatively, that it had withdrawn such action. The statute commands the trial court, in such instances, to "proceed summarily to the determination of the issue so raised", and it did so. Then, pursuant to the statute, it ordered the arbitration to proceed. This was not, under any circumstances, a final judgment.
The statute provides, in Art. 238-2, Sec. A(1), that an appeal may be taken from "an order denying an application to compel arbitration made under Section A of Article 225." But, there was no order denying such an application; instead, the order granted the application.
The legislative intent is clear: If the court denies arbitration, that puts an end to the matter and, if the moving party desires relief, he must perfect his appeal. Such is tantamount to a take nothing judgment in a suit for damages. On the other hand as we have in our case, an order compelling arbitration the court had simply taken the first step in the ultimate disposition of the dispute between the parties. The Court still has jurisdiction to modify the award (Art. 238 ) and to confirm, correct, and enforce such award under Art. 238-1.
We have found no statutory authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sultan v. Mathew
...Corp., 391 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.1965) (order authorizing depositions was interlocutory); Citizens Nat'l Bank of Beaumont v. Callaway, 597 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd) (order compelling arbitration was interlocutory). Therefore, we read section 28.053(d) to mean t......
-
Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp. v. Evansville Teachers Ass'n
...statutory authorization for such appeals, e.g., Roeder v. Huish (1970), 105 Ariz. 508, 467 P.2d 902; Citizens National Bank v. Callaway (1980), Tex.Civ.App., 597 S.W.2d 465, or that because orders compelling arbitration are not listed among those specifically designated as appealable in the......
-
Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge
...v. Vondergoltz, 14 S.W.3d 329, 330-31 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.); cf. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Beaumont v. Callaway, 597 S.W.2d 465, 465-66 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd) (holding that court lacked jurisdiction under TAA to consider interlocutory appeal from trial......
-
Ellis v. Schlimmer
...Aviation Co., Inc., 620 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Citizens Nat'l Bank of Beaumont v. Callaway, 597 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Without dispute, the order denying arbitration was not a final judgment. The Dallas Cour......