Hubbard v. Tallal, 1604-6492.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 1604-6492.,1604-6492. |
| Parties | HUBBARD v. TALLAL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Defendant in error filed in the district court of Dallas county a bill of review for the purpose of obtaining relief from a final judgment for debt which had been rendered against him in an action brought in said court by plaintiff in error. The bill alleged in detail facts indicating that the petitioner was prevented from making defense to said action by the wrongful act of plaintiff in error, or his attorney, in proceeding to trial in the absence of petitioner and his attorney, unmixed with fault or neglect on the part of petitioner or of his attorney, and that petitioner had a good defense to the original action. After trial without a jury on the bill, the answer of plaintiff in error, and the evidence offered, the trial court rendered judgment that the judgment theretofore rendered in favor of plaintiff in error against defendant in error "be and the same is hereby in all things set aside, held for naught and forever annulled, and that any and all process of whatever kind or character heretofore issued thereunder be and the same is hereby set aside, annulled and held for naught." It was further ordered that no further or future execution or process of any character should issue by reason of said judgment. On the appeal of plaintiff in error from said order, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 57 S.W.(2d) 226.
The order entered by the trial court made no disposition of the original controversy between plaintiff in error and defendant in error; the asserted debt for which the original judgment was rendered. While the trial court found, in the findings of fact which were made and filed, that Tallal owed Hubbard nothing, it is apparent from the entire record that this was the finding of a meritorious defense made only as a basis for setting aside the former judgment, and that no final disposition was made or intended to be made of the original controversy.
It is settled that in a suit brought by bill of review to set aside a judgment only one trial is to be had, in which the court must try and determine not only the question whether the judgment may be reopened, but also the issues presented in the original action, and that an order which merely vacates the former judgment without disposing of the merits of the controversy between the parties is not a final judgment from which appeal will lie. Taylor, Knapp & Co. v. Fore, 42 Tex. 256; Lynn v. Hanna, 116 Tex. 652, 296 S.W. 280; Wear v. McCallum, 119 Tex. 473, 33 S.W.(2d) 723; Wise v. Lewis (Tex.Com.App.) 23 S.W. (2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridgman v. Moore
...Hospital Estate v. Nachant, Tex. Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d 505; Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Arnold, Tex.Sup., 88 S.W.2d 473; Hubbard v. Tallal, Tex.Com.App., 92 S.W.2d 1022; Owens v. Foley, 42 Tex. Civ.App. 49, 93 S.W. 1003; Lyon-Taylor Co. v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W. 605 (on rehearing);......
-
Alexander v. Hagedorn
...facts of the case to be excusable negligence. See Dallas Development Co. v. Reagan, Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 240; Hubbard v. Tallal, 127 Tex. 242, 92 S.W.2d 1022, facts set out in opinion of Court of Civil Appeals, 57 S.W.2d 226; Nachant v. Montieth, 117 Tex. 214, 299 S.W. 888. See also Kell......
-
Kessler v. Kessler
...is not a final judgment from which an appeal will lie. Henderson v. Shell Oil Co., 143 Tex. 142, 182 S.W.2d 994 (1944); Hubbard v. Tallal, 127 Tex. 242, 92 S.W.2d 1022 (1936, judgment adopted); Shaw v. Cunningham, 42 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1931, writ ref'd). In that situation, t......
- Westerhaus v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.