Yancey v. Jacob Stern & Sons, Inc., 17104
Decision Date | 06 April 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 17104,17104 |
Citation | 564 S.W.2d 487 |
Parties | Larry YANCEY et ux., Appellants, v. JACOB STERN & SONS, INC., Appellees. (1st Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Mounger, Whittington & Pfeiffer, Stan L. Pfeiffer, Houston, for appellants.
Baker & Botts, William C. Slusser, Randall A. Hopkins, Houston, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order entered by the district court on a petition for a bill of review finding a default judgment null and void and reinstating the case on the docket "as if the default judgment had not been entered". The judgment is an interlocutory order and the appeal will be dismissed.
Larry Yancey and wife, Nancy Yancey, entered suit against Jacob Stern & Sons, Inc., for damages growing out of a automobile collision. The 164th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, rendered a judgment by default in favor of the plaintiffs on September 8, 1975. On October 20, 1975, Jacob Stern & Sons, Inc., filed a petition in the nature of a bill of review in the 157th District Court. The case was transferred to the 164th District Court, and on October 18, 1977, the summary judgment appealed from was entered.
The trial court set aside the judgment for the reason that the summary judgment evidence established that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the corporation. The order is interlocutory on its face. Where an order appealed from is not an appealable final judgment, the reviewing court has no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the appeal. Dimerling v. Grodhaus, 152 Tex. 548, 261 S.W.2d 561 (1953).
The appellant contends that the allegations of the writ of error are insufficient to invoke the equity jurisdiction of the trial court and that this court should render judgment dismissing the cause. If in fact the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the case, the proper procedure for this court would be to render judgment dismissing the cause. Martin v. Commercial Standard Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 505 S.W.2d 799 (Tex.1974).
The point appellant seeks to make is illustrated by the case of Wear v. McCallum, 119 Tex. 473, 33 S.W.2d 723 (1930), where the court said:
The court in Wear v. McCallum further held that the pleading was insufficient as a bill of review. The court discussed the necessity for pleading and proving a defense to the cause of action on which the default judgment rested and the necessity for showing that the petitioner was not negligent in failing to seasonably answer to the merits. The court then said:
"This pleading of respondent Lyles . . . goes no further than to seek to reopen and to relitigate the issues tendered by plaintiff's petition in the case, and as a bill of review is wholly insufficient."
The court then granted mandamus to compel the district judge to set aside the order granting the new trial and reinstating the case.
In McEwen v. Harrison, 162 Tex. 125, 345 S.W.2d 706 (1961), Texaco, Inc., was cited by serving a copy of the citation on Warren A. Roach. Texaco failed to appear and a default judgment was rendered. After the judgment had become final, Texaco filed a motion to vacate the judgment on the ground that it was void because citation had not been served on a person designated by law as its agent for service. The motion was granted and an order entered vacating the judgment. The motion did not contain the allegations required to qualify it as a bill of review. The Supreme Court granted a mandamus requiring the district court to set aside the order, and in its opinion stated
The opinion in McEwen was clarified by the Supreme Court in Deen v. Kirk, 508 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.1974), where the court said that the words "jurisdictional power" as used in McEwen meant jurisdiction over the subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Benson v. State
...appeal." Lipshy Motorcars, Inc. v. Sovereign Assocs., Inc., 944 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, no writ); see Yancey v. Jacob Stern & Sons, Inc., 564 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ). After ascertaining that dismissal was proper, it would have been impr......
-
Lipshy Motorcars, Inc. v. Sovereign Associates, Inc., 05-96-02002-CV
...dismiss the appeal. See Harper v. Welchem, Inc., 799 S.W.2d 492, 496 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ); Yancey v. Jacob Stern & Sons, Inc., 564 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ). Absent jurisdiction, courts cannot sanction parties. See Scott & Wh......
-
Plorin v. Bedrock Foundation and House Leveling Co., Inc.
...This court has no jurisdiction to consider an attempted appeal from an interlocutory trial court judgment. See Yancey v. Jacob Stern & Sons, Inc., 564 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ). A judgment that fails to dispose of all parties and all issues is not a f......
-
In re Moreno
...order was void nor contained any discussion about an adequate remedy. Similarly, in Schnitzius, the court relied on Yancey v. Jacob Stern Sons, Inc., 564 S.W.2d 487, (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ), for the proposition that an order granting an insufficient bill of review is ......