Hughes and Wife v. Maddox’s Ex’rs.
Where after final judgment, but at the same term of the court, the court entertained a petition of intervention, and upon the application of the intervenor set aside final judgment and continued the case: Held, That the judgment was interlocutory, and that the writ of error should be dismissed.
Where a new trial is granted, if the result should be unfavorable to the party who has been successful in the first, then, in some strong cases, in would he competent for this court to revise the judgment of the court below insetting aside the first judgment.
Error from Brazoria. In this case a decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in error at the Spring Term, 1819, of the District Court of Brazoria county. At the same term of the court, on tiie affidavit of David E. Butler, attorney in fact of Sarah M. Maddox, tiie decree was set aside and tiie said Sarah M. Maddox permitted to come in as a party, and the case continued to next term. Tiie writ of error was taken to revise tiie judgment of the court below in setting aside the decree, &c.
McQueen §• Willie, for defendant iu error.
Eipscomb, J.
This is in principle not different from the granting a new trial. Now, if the judgment in granting a new trial can he revised at all it cannot be done until after a final judgment rendered by the court in the ease after a second trial. If the result should he unfavorable to the party who lmd been successful in the first, then, in some strong cases, it would be competent for this court to revise the correctness of tiie decision of the court iu setting aside the first judgment.
Because, then, that in tiiis case the writ of error has been sued out whilst the cause is still pending in the court below, the motion to dismiss the writ of error is sustained.
Writ of error dismissed.
Hemphill, Ch. J. I did not sit in this case, and give no opinion.