
    WAGGONER et ux. v. GEAR.
    (No. 1431.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
    March 8, 1923.)
    Appeal and error &wkey;>78(l) — Overruling motion for judgment on answer by jury to special issues not a “final judgment” conferring jurisdiction on appellate court.
    Under Rev. St. arts. 2OT8-2Í13, providing for appeals, overruling defendants’ motion for judgment on answers by a jury to special issues was not such a “final judgment” as will confer jurisdiction on an appellate court.
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Final Decree or Judgment.]
    Appeal from District Court, El Paso County ; P. R. Price, Judge.
    Action by Charles F. Gear against William H. Waggoner and wife. From an order overruling defendants’ motion for judgment, defendants appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Wallace & Cameron and C. W. Croom, all of El Paso, for appellants.
    W. L. Zachary and A. T. Folsom, both of El Paso, for appellee.
   HARPER, O. J.

This suit was instituted by appellee against appellant for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by reason of a collision between appellants’ automobile and a motorcycle upon which appellee was riding, etc.

The cause was called for trial, jury impaneled, and it submitted by special issues, only two of which were answered.

Appellants filed motion for judgment upon these answers. This motion was by the court overruled, and from the order overruling this motion for judgment the defendant appealed.

This is not such a final judgment as will confer jurisdiction upon this court Articles 2078-2113, Revised Civil Statutes; Beardsley v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 178 S. W. 692.

The appeal is therefore dismissed. 
      other eases see same topic and KEV-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     