General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bodenheim
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
WILLSON, O. J.
(after stating the case as above).
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 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…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kinney v. Tri-State Telephone Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1920
- Eastham v. SallisTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Walker v. MearsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1902
3Cited by4 opinions
- Willingham v. HagertyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Herrin Transp. Co. v. MarmionCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
- Harris v. O'BrienCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Manley v. RazienCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942