Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company
Pan American Petroleum Corporation Et Al v. Texas Pacific Coal and Oil Company, Et Al.
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
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, Texas Civ. App., 239 S.W. 2d 724 (wr. ref. n.r.e.), Riggs v. Bartlett, Texas Civ. App., 310 S.W. 2d 690 (wr. ref. n.r.e.), 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 outweigh 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., Texas Civ. App., 262 S.W. 2d 807 (wr. ref.); Myers v. Smitherman, Texas 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.
*552 Opinion delivered May 13, 1959.
Associate Justice Hamilton not sitting.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(both holding that summary judgment is made final if trial court severs unadjudicated issues and parties)
-
("[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.")
-
(“[A] party against whom ... an interlocutory summary judgment has been rendered will have his right of appeal when ... the same is merged in a final judgment disposing of the whole ease.”)
-
("[A] ed the order as interlocutory)
Cited by 142 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- In re Daniel W. Warren, Beneficiary of the Daniel Steven Weiner 1996 Trust
- Joan DeYoung, Stephen DeYoung, M.D., and David DeYoung v. William L. Maynard, Individually and as of the Estate of Judy Page Maynard, and Maynard Properties, L.P.
- DeNucci v. Matthews
- In re George Green and Garlan Green
- Elishah Sawyers, Pax Crate & Freight, Inc. and Robin Sawyers v. Marc Carter and Sally Carter
- Beyer Properties, L.L.C. v. Jerry Huffman Custom Builder, L.L.C.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.