TEXAS GULF TRAWLING CO., INC., MARINE RAILWAY, INC., ZIMCO MARINE, INC., TEXQULMARCO COMPANY, INC., WALTER ZIMMERMAN AND HARLEY DALE LONDRIE v. RCA TRAWLERS & SUPPLY, INC. AND PATRICIO AHUMADA, JR.--Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-10-00155-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG TEXAS GULF TRAWLING, INC., MARINE RAILWAY, INC., ZIMCO MARINE, INC., TEXGULMARCO COMPANY, INC., WALTER ZIMMERMAN AND HARLEY DALE LONDRIE, Apellants, v. RCA TRAWLERS & SUPPLY, INC. AND PATRICIO AHUMADA, JR., Appellees. On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellants, Texas Gulf Trawling, Inc., Marine Railway, Inc., Zimco Marine, Inc., Texgulmarco Company, Inc., Walter Zimmerman, and Harley Dale, argue by four issues that the trial court erred in granting a bill of review filed by appellees, RCA Trawlers & Supply, Inc. and Patricio Ahumada Jr., in trial court cause number 2006-07-3152-D. Appellees filed their bill of review seeking to set aside a judgment in trial court cause number 94-09-4693-D dismissing that cause for want of prosecution. After a jury trial on the merits of the bill of review, the jury found that neither appellees nor their counsel had received a ADrop Docket Notice@ or AOrder of Dismissal For Want of Prosecution@ in the underlying case. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury=s verdict and entered an order on January 11, 2010, granting the bill of review and vacating the AOrder of Dismissal For Want of Prosecution@ previously issued in trial court cause number 94-09-4693-D. This appeal followed. On June 30, 2010, appellees filed a motion arguing that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the challenged order is interlocutory. Appellees also asked that we impose sanctions upon appellants for filing a frivolous appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 45. We agree that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. An appeal may be prosecuted only from a final judgment which disposes of all issues and parties in the case. Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990). A bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of all the issues of the case on the merits is interlocutory in nature and is not an appealable final judgment. Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (citing Tesoro, 796 S.W.2d at 705; Warren v. Walter, 414 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. 1967)). 2 Because appellants have not shown that the merits of the underlying case, trial court cause number 94-09-4693, have been ruled on and the case disposed of, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See id. We therefore grant appellees= motion in part and dismiss the instant appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Further, having fully considered appellees= request for sanctions, we deny that request. See TEX. R. APP. P. 45. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 18th day of November, 2010. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
