Manley v. Razien
| Decision Date | 30 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 5415.,5415. |
| Citation | 160 S.W.2d 995 |
| Parties | MANLEY et al. v. RAZIEN et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Gray County; W. R. Ewing, Judge.
Suit by T. K. Manley against John Razien and others for an injunction and damages for alleged destruction of certain property, wherein defendants filed cross-actions. From the judgment, all the parties appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Curtis Douglass and Ennis Favors, both of Pampa, for appellants.
Walter E. Rogers, of Pampa, for appellees.
This suit was filed by the appellant, T. K. Manley, against the appellees, John Razien, Carl Crites, Earl Hesman and Don Blake, for injunction and damages in connection with the sale by Manley to Razien of certain junk iron and other metals situated in appellant's junk yards in Gray County. The appellant alleged that the appellees had destroyed and were destroying and converting to junk certain oil field supplies belonging to him which had not been sold to Razien, to appellant's damages in the sum of $2,000. The court issued a restraining order and, later, a temporary injunction restraining the appellees from entering the junk yards of appellant or destroying or removing any property located on his premises. The appellee, John Razien, filed a cross action alleging that Manley had converted to his own use certain portions of junk sold to Razien, to the latter's damage in the sum of $6,000. The other appellees, who were merely employes of Razien, filed a cross action in which they each sought damages for $250 by reason of the granting of the injunctive relief to Manley wherein they were restrained from work.
The cause proceeded to trial on the merits before the court without a jury. The court entered judgment dissolving the injunction, granting Manley a judgment against the appellees, Razien, Crites, Hesman and Blake, for the sum of $1,000, jointly and severally, and granted Razien judgment in the sum of $2,000 against Manley and the two sureties upon the injunction bond, M. C. Overton, Jr. and I. L. Robinson. There was no offset ordered between the two recoveries. All the parties have appealed from this judgment, but in order to avoid confusion, we shall refer to T. K. Manley as the appellant, and Razien, Crites, Hesman and Blake as the appellees.
It is our opinion that the above judgment is not final but only interlocutory. Having determined that Manley was entitled to recover of Razien a specified sum, and that Razien was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willingham v. Hagerty
...277 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1932, no writ); Herrin Transp. Co. v. Marmion, 113 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1938, no writ); Manley v. Razien, 160 S.W.2d 995 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1942, no The Comparative Negligence Act does not purport to authorize an appeal from a determination that e......
-
Hamilton v. Herrin Transp. Co.
...severable; and we are required, we think, to remand the entire case. Nalle v. Harrell, 118 Tex. 149, 12 S.W.2d 550, 551; Manley v. Razien, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 995. The judgment is reversed and the cause ...
-
Manley v. Razien
...in appellant's junk yards in Gray County. The same case was before this court previously when the appeal was dismissed, as reported in 160 S.W.2d 995, because the judgment of the trial court on that appeal was not final but only interlocutory and for a full statement of the original case, w......