AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. BODENHEIM.

WILLSON, C.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 v. Tel. Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 222 S.W. 227. This court, therefore, can not do otherwise than dismiss the appeal.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GEN. MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. v. BODENHEIM
(Oct 23, 1930)