Wright v. Red River County Bank

• Decision Date: 03 January 1893
• Citation: 20 S.W. 879
• Parties: WRIGHT v. RED RIVER COUNTY BANK.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

20 S.W. 879

WRIGHT v. RED RIVER COUNTY BANK.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

January 3, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Red River county; E. D. McCLELLAN, Judge.

Action by the Red River County Bank against S. J. Wright and others to have declared the existence of a lien on certain land for the payment of various notes held by plaintiff. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant Wright appeals. Dismissed.

Geo. F. Burdett and Dudley & Moore, for appellant. M. L. Sims and W. B. Dunham, for appellee.

STEPHENS, J.

The judgment appealed from in this case declares the existence of a lien in favor of appellee on a certain tract of land therein described, ordering the sale of the same to secure the payment of the following debts in the following order: First. The note of one Fleming, without security. Second. Two notes of said Fleming, with O'Neill and others as sureties on one, and Silberberg and Patton as sureties on the other, (against which sureties judgment was also rendered.) Third. A certain indebtedness of said Fleming, paid by appellant and others as his sureties. The record contains conclusions of law and fact, and a statement of facts. The sixth finding of fact, that the note upon which Silberberg and Patton were sureties was secured by lien on said land, appears to be unsustained by the statement of facts. This probably resulted from an oversight in making up the statement of facts. If appellant had definitely assigned error upon the failure of the statement of facts to sustain the sixth finding of fact, (of which he complains in his brief under a rather general assignment,) it would have become necessary to either reform the judgment, or remand the cause for a new trial, provided the appeal had been perfected so as to give this court jurisdiction. The appeal bond is payable to the Red River County Bank alone. It thus appears that the interests of Silberberg and Patton might be affected by the judgment to be entered on this appeal without their being before the court as parties to the appeal. Their interests, as well as the interests of O'Neill and others, are adverse to the interests of appellant, to the extent of the priority of the several liens. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Young v. Russell, 60 Tex. 684, and cases there cited.