Texas Supreme Court has carved out an exception to this general rule. When the case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, there is no presumption that the dismissal order also disposed of issues in an independent cross-action or counterclaim. See Id. (citing Davis v. McCray Refrigerator Sales Corp., 136 Tex. 296, 150 S.W.2d 377 (1941)); Dardari v. Texas Commerce Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 961 S.W.2d 466, 469 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.); Macarangal, 838 S.W.2d at 634; Massey v. Davis, 660 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1988, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Here, the dismissal order made no specific mention or reference to Darr’s counterclaim; therefore, his counterclaim was not dismissed and the judgment is interlocutory from which no appeal will lie. See Davis, 150 S.W.2d at 378 (<HOLDING>). An exception to the rule stated in Davis
holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable  holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees holding that because trial courts order did not dispose of the defendants counterclaim that order was not a final judgment that would support an appeal holding that where the trial court dismisses the plaintiffs suit but does not refer to or mention the defendants crossaction the judgment does not dispose of the crossaction either expressly or by implication and there is no final judgment