Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2002

Cecil G. Ford and Wife, Dorothy Ford and Cecil and Dorothy Ford Living Trust v. Clovis Russell

Cecil G. Ford and Wife, Dorothy Ford and Cecil and Dorothy Ford Living Trust v. Clovis Russell
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided March 28, 2002

Cecil G. Ford and Wife, Dorothy Ford and Cecil and Dorothy Ford Living Trust v. Clovis Russell

Opinion

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

            Opinion

 

Cecil G. Ford and wife, Dorothy Ford, and

Cecil and Dorothy Ford Living Trust                

Appellants

Vs.       No.  11-00-00408-CV B Appeal from Erath County

Clovis Russell

Appellee

 

This appeal arises from eminent domain proceedings initiated by the City of Stephenville against Cecil G. Ford as owner of two tracts of land upon which the City wanted to acquire easements to extend a road.   The City amended its petition to also name Clovis Russell as an owner of the tracts.  Special commissioners were appointed, and they awarded Ford the value of each tract and damages for one of the tracts.  The commissioners awarded Russell A$0.00" as value and as damages for each tract.  Ford filed an objection to the commissioners= award and requested a jury trial.  Russell filed an amended plea in intervention asking the trial court to dismiss Ford and to allow Russell to proceed in the suit as the successor to Ford=s interest in the condemned property.  Ford=s wife Dorothy and the Cecil and Dorothy Ford Living Trust were added as parties.  In its September 20, 2000, order, the trial court granted Russell=s motion, dismissed the Fords and the Trust from the suit, and ordered that Russell succeed appellants in Aall causes of action and defenses that have attached to such property in the current Eminent Domain proceeding.@  The Fords and the Trust have perfected this appeal.

The September 20 order did not dispose of all of the parties or all of the issues before the trial court and, therefore, is an interlocutory order.   North East Independent School District v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. 1966).  This court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and interlocutory orders where permitted by law.  TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. '' 51.012 & 51.014 (Vernon 1997 & Supp. 2002).   An appeal from the September 20 order is not authorized under Section 51.014 and is premature at this time.

 


Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

 

PER CURIAM

 

March 28, 2002

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of:  Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.