Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company
| Citation | 159 Tex. 550,324 S.W.2d 200 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. A-7237,A-7237 |
| Parties | PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. TEXAS PACIFIC COAL & OIL COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
L. A. Thompson, Tulsa, Okl., J. K. Smith Fort Worth, Turner, Rodgers, Winn, Scurlock & Terry, Lon Sailers, Dallas, Frank Ashby, Midland, for petitioners.
Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy & Laughlin, Midland, Hudson, Keltner & Sarsgard, Bruce Cunningham, Ft. Worth, for respondents.
The Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed petitioners' appeal, holding that the summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of respondents and against petitioners on one phase of the case is interlocutory and not appealable. 320 S.W.2d 915. No severance was ordered by the trial court, but petitioners say that the case involves two entirely separate, severable and independent causes of action, and that the summary judgment disposes of all issues and parties involved in one cause of action. They argue that under such circumstances the granting of the motion for summary judgment effectively severed the two causes of action by implication, and that the judgment is therefore final and appealable.
While there is authority for the argument advanced by petitioners, Richards v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 724 (); Riggs v. Bartlett, Tex.Civ.App., 310 S.W.2d 690 (), we do not think the finality and hence the appealability of a judgment should be made to turn upon whether the action is severable as to issues, as to parties, or as to causes of action. The confusion and uncertainty involved in the application of such a rule outweight any advantages which might result therefrom. In our opinion a summary judgment which does not dispose of all parties and issues in the pending suit is interlocutory and not appealable unless a severance of that phase of the case is ordered by the trial court. Gallaher v. City Transp. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W.2d 807 (wr. ref.); Myers v. Smitherman, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W.2d 173 (no writ). In the absence of an order of severance, a party against whom such an interlocutory summary judgment has been rendered will have his right of appeal when and not before the same is merged in a final judgment disposing of the whole case.
The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
HAMILTON, J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist v. Bandera Elec. Co-op., Inc.
...order of severance, the appellate courts should dismiss because the order is nonappealable. Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 159 Tex. 550, 324 S.W.2d 200, 200 (1959); see also City of Beaumont, 751 S.W.2d at 492; Teer v. Duddlesten, 664 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex.1984......
-
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
...it expressly disposed of all parties and issues or if it was severed from the remainder of the suit. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 324 S.W.2d 200, 200 (Tex. 1959) ("[A] summary judgment which does not dispose of all parties and issues in the pending suit is interlocu......
-
City of Austin v. Hall
...was entered. Steeple Oil & Gas Corporation vs. Amend, 394 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.Sup.1965); Pan-American Petroleum Corporation vs. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company (159 Tex. 550) 324 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Sup.1959); Palmer vs. D.O .K.K. Benevolent & Insurance Ass'n, 334 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Sup.1960); Coasta......
-
Ross v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co.
...appealable unless the trial court orders a severance as to the undisposed parties or issues. Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 159 Tex. 550, 324 S.W.2d 200, 200 (1959). If the trial court has not ordered a severance as to the undisposed parties or issues, the summar......