J. David Blankenship v. Ronald A. Robins

Per Curiam The sole issue in this case is whether the court of appeals properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands for further
proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 170. Ronald Robins sued J. David Blankenship II and two other defendants to recover the unpaid balance on two promissory notes.
The trial court granted summary judgment against Blankenship and, to finalize the judgment for purposes of appeal, severed
the judgment from the claims against the remaining defendants. The trial court's order stated that the remaining defendants
would be assigned a new cause number, leaving the summary judgment against Blankenship under the original cause number. The
abstract of judgment issued by the clerk, however, stated the opposite -- that the remaining defendants would continue under
the original cause number while the summary judgment was given a new cause number.1