Nunez v. McElroy
Decision Date | 24 February 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 408.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 184 S.W. 531 |
Parties | NUNEZ v. McELROY. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; M. Nagle, Judge.
On motion to vacate judgment of affirmance. Denied.
For former opinion, see 174 S. W. 829.
C. L. Vowell, Beall & Kemp, and J. E. Quaid, all of El Paso, for appellant. Davis & Goggin, Paul D. Thomas, and Burges & Burges, all of El Paso, for appellee.
At a preceding term of this court, a final disposition of this appeal was made and judgment of affirmance entered. At this term, appellant filed a motion setting up that the judgment of the lower court was not final; therefore this court never acquired jurisdiction, and its order of affirmance was a nullity and should now be vacated and the appeal dismissed. If the judgment of the court below is subject to the objection urged against it, this court never acquired jurisdiction of the case. Its order of affirmance would be a nullity and it should now be vacated and the appeal dismissed. The fact that this motion is filed at a subsequent term is not an objection to such action. Chambers v. Hodges, 3 Tex. 517; Burke v. Mathews, 37 Tex. 73; Burr v. Lewis, 6 Tex. 76; Munson v. Newson, 9 Tex. 109; Dazey v. Pennington, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 326, 31 S. W. 312; Milam Co. v. Robertson, 47 Tex. 222.
Appellant's motion will therefore be considered upon its merits.
It is objected to the judgment of the court below that it lacks finality, because it fails to dispose of all the parties to, issues, and subject-matter of, the litigation.
The suit was filed by McElroy against Nunez et al. to recover title to and possession of a number of surveys of land bordering on the Rio Grande river. On July 31, 1913, plaintiff filed an amended petition against the same defendants and Ignacio Rodriguez. On September 2, 1913, defendants filed a plea of not guilty. On January 7, 1914, defendants filed another answer, which reads:
On January 8, 1914, plaintiff again amended, in such amendment stating that he dismissed as to all defendants except Nunez. This petition complained only of Nunez, and prayed judgment against him for the title and possession of the land therein described. The land described was five acres out of one of the surveys named in the preceding petitions. On the same date the court entered an order of dismissal as follows:
In this order, it will be observed that Ignacio Rodriguez is not specifically named.
On January 12, 1914, Nunez filed what he designates his trial amendment in answer to the trial amendment of plaintiff, and in this amendment he pleaded not guilty; also, the five and ten years' statute of limitation which he pleaded in bar of the suit. This answer concluded with this prayer:
"Defendant says, by reason of the aforesaid statute of limitation, the facts pleaded in connection with defendant's prayer invoking the same, that he is the owner in fee simple of the property described in plaintiff's petition, is the owner of the title thereto, the same is by law vested in him, and he prays on final hearing that he have judgment over against the plaintiff for the lands described in plaintiff's petition and for the title thereto, and that he have judgment quieting his title forever as against any claim of this plaintiff."
To this last amendment plaintiff filed a supplemental petition containing matter in no wise pertinent to the questions here considered. It concluded with prayer for recovery of the premises described in his last amended original petition and that Nunez take nothing by his cross-action.
Upon trial of the cause, the court entered judgment in favor of McElroy against Nunez for the title and possession of the five acres of land described in McElroy's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co.
...Haley [Tex. Civ. App.] 236 S. W. 544; Apache Cotton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. Watkins & Kelly [Tex. Civ. App.] 189 S. W. 1083; Nunez v. McElroy [Tex. Civ. App.] 184 S. W. 531; Taylor v. Hill [Tex. Civ. App.] 183 S. W. 186; Kolp v. Shrader [Tex. Civ. App.] 131 S. W. 860; Blank v. Robertson, 34 Tex. ......
-
Davis v. McCray Refrigerator Sales Corporation
...52 S.W.2d 946; Kosse National Bank v. Derden, Tex.Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 295; Rouser v. Hogue, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W. 349; Nunez v. McElroy, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W. 531; Partridge v. Wooton, 63 Tex.Civ.App. 280, 137 S.W. 412; Brown v. Wofford, Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W. 764; Nalle v. Harrell, 118 T......
-
First State Bank & Trust Co. v. Overshiner
...Dazey v. Pennington, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 326, 31 S. W. 312, Heath v. Layne, 62 Tex. 686; Milam County v. Robertson, 47 Tex. 222; Nunez v. McElroy, 184 S. W. 531; Chambers v. Hodges, 3 Tex. 517; Burke v. Mathews, 37 Tex. 73; Burr v. Lewis, 6 Tex. 76. The cited cases hold that the trial court h......
-
Bowie Sewerage Co. v. Watson
...Carlton v. Krueger, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 48, 115 S. W. 619, 1178; Tison v. Gass, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 163, 102 S. W. 751; Nunez v. McElroy (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 531; Yerby v. Heineken (Tex. Civ. App.) 209 S. W. 835; Gregory v. South Texas Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 216 S. W. 420; Smith v. W......