Dаllas County Flood Control District No. 1 brought suit to set aside a series of transac
The District had agreed to purchase two permanent easements for flood control purposes from Cross. The consideration for these easements was set out in a November 1985 agreement between the parties. Under that agreement, Cross received $65,000 in cash and 51 promissory notes totaling $1,242,954.20 which was due in 28 months.
The District sued Cross to rescind these transactions. In the first trial, the triаl court granted a summary judgment declaring that the transactions were void and rescinding them. Cross appealed that judgment. Finding the existence of a material fact issue, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the ease for trial. See Cross v. Dallas County Flood Control District No. 1, 773 S.W.2d at 49.
So that the District could issue bonds аnd complete its construction, the parties reached an agreement in what the Dallas Court of Appeals described as a “truce.” By the agreement dated September 1986, the parties placed $1,042,954.20 and the 51 promissory notes in escrow with First Western National Bank of Carrollton. This agreement is detailed by the Dallas Court of Appeals in the Subsection of its opinion entitled “THE REACTION.” See Dallas County Flood Control District No. 1 v. Cross,
The case was subsequently tried to a jury which answerеd a total of 22 special issues, 11 favorable to Cross and 11 favorable to the District. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Cross. The District appealed that judgment. The Dallas Court of Appeals held, based on the answers of the jury, that the members of the Board who voted for the transaction had violated the applicable conflict-of-interest statute, that the Board’s action violated the Open Meetings Act, and that public рolicy barred the knowing beneficiaries of illegal transactions from asserting equitable estoppel. See Dallas County Flood Control District No. 1 v. Cross,
Following that decision, the trial court issued its judgment enforсing mandate, held that the easements of record were void and of no effect, and ordered that the funds in escrow with Western be paid over to the District and that the promissory notes be returned to it. No appeal was taken from that order.
Filing an interpleader action, Western tendеred these funds into the registry of the court. The District filed a declaratory judgment action asserting its rights to the funds and notes under the court’s mandate. Henry W. Coit, James Whatley, Charles C. Underwood, and George C. Witte claimed an interest in these proceeds by way of an assignment from Cross. The trial court entered a summary judgment ordering that these funds be paid over to the District and ¿hat the notes be returned to it. It is from this judgment that the present appeal arises.
Bеcause the District had already constructed its flood controls over the permanent easements on the lands in dispute and because these easements were held to be void in the above actions, the District sued in a new cause of action for condemnation of these easements. The jury assessed damages for the taking in the amount of $189,000
Cross, Coit, Whatley, Underwood, and Witte bring this appeal complaining that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment because (1) the summary judgment materially exceeded the specific provisions of the mandate issued by the court and (2) there are material issuеs of fact between the District and appellants which had not been settled by either an agreement of the parties or by the court. We affirm.
Parties and Jurisdiction
Thеre are five appellants named in appellant’s brief: Charles A. Cross, James Whatley, Charles C. Underwood, Henry W. Coit, and George C. Witte. Whatley and Witte have filed disclaimers in this court in this appeal and have requested to be removed as appellants. This court has dismissed Western, the interpleader, as an ap-pellee from this appeal.
Only Coit is named as an appellant in the appeal bond filed in this case. Consequently, this court never acquired jurisdiction to consider an appeal by Cross, Whatley, Underwood, or Witte. See Governing Board v. Pannill,
This case was submitted on oral argument оn May 4,1995, before this court sitting in Dallas. None of the appellants listed in appellant’s brief made an appearance. By letter dated May 4, 1995, Cross, appearing pro se, forwarded to this court at our offices in Eastland letters providing a suggestion of bankruptcy which he filed in the easе now pending in the Waco Court of Appeals. Because Cross neither perfected an appeal in this case nor invoked this court’s jurisdiction, the suggestion of bankruptcy does not stay this court from proceeding. 11 U.S.C.A. § 362 (West 1993 & Supp.1995).
We have carefully reviewed all the documents filed in the transcriрt of this appeal and find that only Coit is an appellant. We will now address his complaints as to the summary judgment.
Merits of the Appeal
Coit urges that summary judgment in this case is not proper because the Dallas Court of Appeals in Dallas County Flood Control District No. 1 v. Cross,
The judgment of the court that the transactions were voidable and that the District was entitled to the return of its purchase price effectively dealt with the agreements. Damages for thе permanent use of Cross’ land have been awarded in the case now pending on appeal in the Waco Court of Appeals.
Notes
. This case has been transfeired to the Eastland Court of Appeals pursuant to TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Vernon 1988).
. When reviewing a summary judgment, this court will adhere to the following standards:
(1) The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of materiаl fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law;
(2) In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true; and
(3)Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts resolved in its favor.
TEX.R.CIV.P. 166a; Goswami v. Metropolitan Savings and Loan Association,