Mignon v. Brinson

• Decision Date: 10 May 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 903
• Parties: MIGNON <I>v.</I> BRINSON <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

11 S.W. 903

MIGNONv.

BRINSON et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 10, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Tarrant county.

M. C. Brinson and others brought trespass against A. R. Mignon and others to try title to land. Judgment for all the plaintiffs but C. J. Burford. Defendant A. R. Mignon appeals.

A. W. De Berry, for appellant. Hyde Jennings and Hogsett & Greene, for appellees.

STAYTON, C. J.

This is an action of trespass to try title brought by many plaintiffs, among whom are C. J. Burford and his minor daughter, Nannie Burford. Each claimed interest in the lots in controversy, the interest of C. J. Burford, however, being a life-estate in the part to which his daughter asserted title in fee. A judgment was rendered in favor of all the plaintiffs except C. J. Burford for stated undivided interests in the lots in controversy, and in favor of such of the defendants as did not disclaim for other undivided interests. The judgment, however, made no disposition whatever of the case as to C. J. Burford, whose attorneys, 12 days after the judgment was rendered, filed the following: "Now comes C. J. Burford, one of the plaintiffs in this case, by his attorneys, and disclaims for himself any right, title, or interest in and to any of the property in controversy in this suit, and agrees that his child, Nannie Burford, who is also one of the plaintiffs herein, shall have the whole of any interest he may be entitled to in said property." No action of the court was taken upon this, although the motion for new trial filed by appellant, who was one of the defendants, called the attention of the court and parties to the fact that there was no verdict adjusting the right or claim of C. J. Burford, on account of which he claimed that the judgment directing partition could not be sustained.

It is unnecessary to inquire whether a final judgment determining the rights of the respective parties might have been rendered on the verdict, for the fact is no such judgment was entered, and we are met with the inquiry whether an appeal will lie from the judgment entered. It does not dispose of the case as to all the parties before the court, in that it in no way determines the right of C. J. Burford, and until this is done there can be no final judgment from which an appeal may be prosecuted. The paper filed after the judgment was rendered is not a disclaimer, but, on the contrary, asserts an interest in C. J. Burford, which by it his attorneys attempted to convey to his...