History
  • No items yet
midpage
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bodenheim
37 S.W.2d 312
| Tex. App. | 1930
|
Check Treatment

Having determined appellee was entitled to recover of appellant a specified sum and that appellant was entitled to recover of appellee a different specified sum, the court should have set off the one sum against the other, and, having done so, should have rendered judgment for the balance in favor of the party entitled thereo. As the court did not *Page 313 do that, the judgment is not a final one from which an appeal could be prosecuted. Article 2211, R.S. 1925; Walker v. Means, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 210,67 S.W. 167; Eastham v. Sallis, 60 Tex. 576; Kinney v. Tel. Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 222 S.W. 227. This court, therefore, can not do otherwise than dismiss the appeal.

Case Details

Case Name: General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bodenheim
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Oct 23, 1930
Citation: 37 S.W.2d 312
Docket Number: No. 3812.
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.