Calc 3 Mit
Calc 3 Mitre, 6, 5 S. W.2d 545, 547 (Tex.Civ.App.Amarillo 1979, no writ). The majority argues that we should dismiss this appeal because the trial court had no jurisdiction and we are not asked to decide the question. The majority relies on the doctrine of res judicata and cites a number of cases in which the doctrine of collateral estoppel has been recognized. See, e. g., Brown v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 686 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ dism'd w. Online Homework Serviceo.j.) (rejecting res judicatum); State v. Scott, 607 S.W.(2d) at 545; 1 Am. Jur. (Distinguishing between doctrine of collateral and res judicativeness) § 45:20 (1943); State v Newberry, 635 S.W, at 835-37. The majority, however, concludes that because the trial judge…