Woelfel v. McKean, Eilers Co.
Woelfel v. McKean, Eilers Co.
Opinion of the Court
It will thus be seen that the only issue in the case as here presented is as to the correctness of the judgment sustaining said plea of privilege. Appellees, as an independent proposition, assert that this court has no jurisdiction of this appeal, for the reason that said judgment is not a final judgment. Said proposition cannot be sustained for the reason that the statute provides for appeals in such cases. R. S. art. 1833; Oakes & Witt v. Thompson, 125 S. W. 320; Water & Light Co. v. Ice & Water Co., 150 S. W. 259.
We overrule appellants’ assignments for the reason that it appears that the party alleged to have committed such forgery is not a party to this suit. It is not alleged that appellees were in any wise connected with *477 the alleged forgery, nor that they have done any act for which they could be sued in Milam county. Lasater v. Waites, 95 Tex. 553, 68 S. W. 500.
Finding no error of record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
<§=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.