OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eon. Tom A. Crarsn 

Countr Auditor 

flohnnan County 

Waoo, Taxar 

Dou Sir8 

of October S, 

thl8 depw! tmsnt 

or to you iron Eon. 

nnan County, Taaa, 

part, a8 roii0~8t 

rhloh the 8bstraot 16 roethe mm ot onlq one d&and-t %r ahown, whloh 

18 the only dofondant the &ulgment wa1 CbooTerl d againat. 8hould thlr Judgment bo lndrxod 

l galnrt all thr.8 of the defondmtr, in the Nit, 

or the on8 dofondant only in the reoorerl 08u8WO 
. . 

Hon. 

with 

Tom A. Craven, JM@ 8 

m. 8peOia8n l b8traOt Of 

TO'out letter rcad8, la part, 

. . 

jud@mont l noloaod 

a8 r0ii0rn8 

"1, Ilofi Hitoh811, Clark of th8 County 

Court of YoLonnu~ County, ToXa8, do hereby oortlm that in a oertaln ruit pondlly In aald 

oourt, wherein Soha Doe plalntlfr, and John 

#mith, T.J. Logo 8nd BirdI. Wll80n &ra d8fmdants, Ho. 41Bl. The 8aid plaintiff, toha Do., 

reoorcred Judgment l g a in8aid r t drfandant, 

John Smith + l + l 

Judgment lien8 l r8 oreated purely by t&a &atUte8 oi thi8 rtate and the am0 taking ot a jud&ment by 

.A* l galnrrt l Ba dld not oroat a 11811 at oom.aon law. 

rREQuH OR JtlXLmTS, Sth Edition, Vol. 8, pg 19B7. A8 

a reault, the ststutar must, ba 8triOtly tollowad and by 

their term8 a lfen dOa not 8ri88 until the lud@n8nt 18 

properly abstrooted and lndaxad. t9 TEX. JUR. p. 558. 

Tar a proper underetandlng of 

judgment lien8 and th8ir oreation w8 

&tiOl88 5441 and SUS of the Rev i red 

Texar, 19esr 

the naturo or 

8et rorth In full 

Citil StCItUt88 Ot 

'Arti !MM.- Ibatraotr of fudgmantr. 

Baoh olerk of a oourt, when the per8qn in 

rho80 taTOr a judgment -8 rendOr8d, hi8 a&sat, 

attornry or l saigloe, l p F lie8 thsretor, 8hal.l 

Mb out, oertiw under hi8 hand and Otfioa 8.a. 

and dollrer to 8uoh l pplioMt upon the pm-t 

0r the rem allowed by liar, a n l b8traOt or ruoh 

JUd@lG& 8hOWinB: 

1. The name8 oi th8 plaintlti and of the 

dafendant in 8uOh judgnmt. 

2. The number OS the 8uit in whlah the 

jUd@aOnt -~8 r8ndered. 

3. The date whrn 8uoh Judgment wa8 randared. 

4. Th8 amo*lnt for rhloh th8 judgment war 

rendered 8nd tha balanoe due ther8on. 
. 

Hon. Ton A. Craven, page b 

6. Et!trat. Of inter.8t 8JSOiriOd ill th8 lUd& 

. 

"Eaoh just1.e Of the p.aO. 8hall al80 mmk. 

and deliver an abrrtraot of any jud&nent rendered 

la hlr oourt In the mm83 herein prorlded, oertlfled under hi8 hand.. 

‘Artlol. s440.- Reoordlng judgmenta. 

Bach oounty clerk rball keep a well bound 

book oalled the *JudgmentReoord,* and he 8hall 

immediate1 

1~ aathent I 

tile and thrrein reoord all 

oated abstraot8 of judgment R 

ropmw en 

presented to him for reoord, noting therein the 

day and hour of auoh reoord. Be shall at the 

sbme tim enter it upcn the alphabetloal index 

to suoh judgment record, ahowlng the nanm of 

eaoh plaintlif and oi each defendant in the 

judgment, and the number of the pwo of the book 

upon whloh the abstraot is reoorded. a8 8hall 

leave a 8pC. at the r00t.0r 88Oh 8uoh abatraot 

for the entry 0s oredit and 8atirfaotlon 0s 

suoh judgment, and rhall enter the Pame when 

proparly ah~wn.~ 

A8 8tated in CITIZENS STATE BANK OF CLfiRIENDA, 

IOXA f8. DEL-TXX IiJVE.?lWNT CO. (Cl+. App.) lZ?i S.W. (a) 

450: 

'The objeot Of the rtatutor~ prooeedlng for 

abstraot of judgment and reoordrtlon thereof ia 

to put rubsequent pUFOh.8aZ8 or enoumbrano8sabf 

properw aought to be oharged on notloo of the 

lien thereby or8at.d”. 

ha stated in BURNETT ~8~ COCKSHAlT, ET AL, tl 

S.W. 950, B CGA so4: 

“Wiil. the ind8xb 18 aad . n.O.88ur 8t.p 

ti ths oreatlon of the lien, and whllo a aub8tantlal oomplianoe with the 8tatutory direotlon 

o.nnot be dirFbn8.d with by the OOUXt8, then 

18 no re80on why the purpo.8 0s thore requlre- 
. 

Hon. Tom A. Craven, page 4 

nam+~~+~~~~~~~r~~~~hora~ 

nex w-8 ats'z'ii6r'fiinTIiill~ u the law 

provider, the purpose 18 8ub88tr.d and the 

rtatut.8 8hould not bo oon8trued 80 teohnioal17 a8 to imp088 unueoe8aary diffiOultib8 upon 

the jud@.nt oredltor 8..kin~ to 8bOur. 118X&8 

on the property of hi8 4ebtor.* (Undor8oorin(r 

OUT8.1 

see alw BRADLEY vs. JANJSlW;93 3.U. 506 at page SO8. 

Artlole 5448, Retlsed Clrll iZatut.8, supra, 

provide8 that the Clerk shall *'enter It upon the alphabet1081 Index to suoh judgment reoord, showin& th8 nam 

-- or eaoh glalntiff and of eaoh def 

._- _- -m- - 

endant In the juagraont l l l ” (unacrsoorlng OI3r8.) 

-- 

We are main17 conocrnad wlth a proper oonetruotion 0r th18 portion of Art1018 5UR, in answering your 

question, and we notice at the outset that the 8tOtUt.8 

(Artlol.8 5447 and 5418) them8blv.8 both provide In haeo 

rerbae that the namer 0s eaoh FlaiAtifr and or eG6 W 

tendant in the judment must be indexed and not the names 

0r eaoh 38mirr and 8aOh defendant in the 8ult. 

From the euthoritiei in thi8 rtate it 18 quita 

olear that an abstraot of judgment 18 not admlsslble In 

erldenoe to ahow a lien olalmed under it, ~1188s the 

proper indexing 0r the abstraot arrirnatirely app8arr. 

CORBETT v. RXW OD, (Clr. Ap .) S8 S.N. SSO; 

mxTEAKx? f. HILL (CIT. App. P 179 S.W. 5s9; 

LEONARD v. BU?CRD LBR. CO. (Cir. Rpp.) 181 

S.V. 797. 

ad we knor al8o thr,t the ~2’0r1810n Ot hrtiol. S448 rbqulring the olerk to eater upon the alphabetloal Index 

the naam of l r;oh plalntlff and of eaoh defendant ha8 

been held mandatoq. 

~ARAXTT ZPATZ BASK f. XARIOH CC;Wl'T NATICCAL 

BARK (Civ. App.) 293 3.1. 2181 

BAliTON V. PARXS, (Cir. App.) 127 3.1. (26) s76. 
Hon. Tom A. Craven, pagr 5 

OULLEXTQIN CO. 18. OLIVER, RI AL, 78 Texan 

186 14 3.X. 4S1, 18 a 18adln8 0888 in thfr rtate In 

whloh the Supreme Court of TeX88 h.8 hmad.4 down it8 

lnterpretatlon 0s the statute8 go+ernlng judgment 11~~58. 

In th8t oaae jud 

Y 

nt had been rendered agalnet the lndlTldu818 Ooolpo8 ng the partnerahlp Of Mltohell and 

soruggr . The abotr8ot wa8 indexed only under thr letter 

%. under the partn8r8hiQ name and th. oourt held thl8 

to b8 ~8urrioiaat, rayingr 

nphe language Of the .t.tUtb IS Olear, and 

it8 FUrpOt Obf1OuI. Th8 1od8x to 8uoh judge 

aent reoord shall be l lphabetloal, aad rhall 

show the name of eaoh pl8lnti~f and Of eaoh defendant In the judgment, and the number of the 

paga In the bi-ok upon aHoh the abatraot Is 

reoorded. Revised Clril 2tatutt8, Artlola 3158. 

Thir mean8 that ecoh name must appear in the 

index in it8 alphabetioal order. The evident 

objeot le that pereon searohlng for raoord8, 

In order to di.OOT8r the .rl~t.ac. 0r judgment 

11058, ma7 hare the peons 0s asoertalnlry 

whether mob lion8 exist or not, with pro:.ptno88 and certainty. In t:ils oase a third peraon, dealing with 3orugg8, who had no knowledge 

of the FlUtiOUhT judgiaent, would hat. been 

oompelled to exaaine th8 entire reoord In ordar 

to hare asosrtalned that the abdtraot had been 

reoorded. It 1s evident, we think, that ln 

thlr partloular the 8tatute ha8 not been oomplied with, either llterall7 or in rubetano... 

On the other hand, la GLAdSCGCQ[ 18. PIRCE, 9R 

Tax. RIl, 47 S.F. 965, rsodlfylng 4S 8.W. 415, the oaae 

W.8 diNi888d as to one member Of the pmtner8hlQ On 80- 

OfXnt of non-serrloe, and it me held that slnoe the 

wr- raiiindifidual, hi8 aam. wa8 propulr 

ant did not arreot the diaIPis8.d partymFa8 

omitted rrom the Index. 

In Y9OMTRLIR~. COODT (CO~U. App.) 59 9-W. (Rd) 

819, air. (CIT. A;Q.) 39 8.n'. (I?d) 8sS, Char. R. COOlEb.8 

had raoorared a jumant in the d18triot oourt OS Jonsa 

Counq aganst 0.~. coody ror debt, and a881nst said 
CooUf and 0110 U-8. J.T. Qoorgr for foreolosuro of a 

vendor*8 lien. No personal Judgment wa8 rendered in 

raror or Coomber against th8 defendant, Mr. J.T. Oaorge, 

but Lirs. Oeorge reoorered judgment agalnat her oo-deisndant, O.R. Goody, by reason of his oroaa aotioa 

against her, and the orrioerr or the oourt recovered 

Judgment against the reapeotlre parties ror oosts inourred by them. 

We believe the raota In your h~thetloal oase 

are analogous to those presented in the YoOlothlln oaao 

and the sole question before the oourt there was whether 

or not the property of Ccody was charged with the judgment lien by reason or the iallure to index the abetmot 

oi Judeent alphabetloally lc the lname or L:rs. Oeoree. 

The Court held Wet IIO Judgxzent lien was oreat06 and speaking through Shcrt, J., prl siding Judge of. 

Seotion B of’ the Co~isslon of Appeals, said: 

Tlowerer, the articles lnrolrsd here are 

b449 and 5446, and it a:penrs that according 

to the prorlslona or Article 5449 the olerk of 

a oourt, upon an aFrllc?tlon having been made, 

shall nake out, cert.lQ, and deliver to the applioant an abstraot or Judgment shoring fire 

dlrrereat things, the flr8t of w%lOh 18 that 

the abstraot shallTo= zs EeTla- 

‘fTTrs and not~nZiG FOX Tii43Zrsn +r 

antr,FiT~~~-~~, 

Ifthsre serersl.w4hnnamerntm 

nJd&UU, ii. &has k~ ansaL mm rh japea 

4hafQaQfm- After tbir’has been 

done, and this instrument hsn been handed to 

the olork, wuhere lt is soaght to oreatm a lien, 

then, aooordlng to Artlole 5448, mm 

u m &,U rrotxrU etloated abstract& 

cuired Ln sr&z U arm 4hp gbpbbbet~oal &&a 

3Qnvnp--,m*Ba* 

olUtiprWntb 

ilk&l.2 and the number of the gape in the bi;ok 

upon whioh the abstraot is recorded. In other 
Hon. Tom A. Cratsn, page 9 

word8, the Judgment lien glron by plaintirr in 

a judgment is purr4 a statutom one, and a 

person who asserts that ho hns suoh a lien must 

show that eaoh a nd l req requirement or the 

statute has been followed in order that he shall 

establish the existence or suoh Ilen.* (Undersoorlng ours). 

Lrr SiIRkT VS. TRUST C ‘Y.: Alrr GT TEXAS, ET AI. 

(CCA 19S4) 69 S.U. (2d) 835, writ reruaed, ths l bstraot 

or judgment Fepared by the oounty olerk was indexsd 

only in the nasies or the plalotirrs and defendants appetrlag in the abvtraot and was not isdexsd ln the mum 

of eaoh derendant apyearlng in the Judgmant. Them vas 

no personal reoc;rery for debt by the Flalntifi against 

the defendants whose names were omitted from the abstraot, but the Judgmmt did deorcs a recovery br plaiatlrts or all the costs or the case against oae or the 

defendants not naLled In the abotraot: an& likewise t.?other 

detendant whose name did not sppear in the abstraot vts 

deorsed s raoovcry of all oosts inourred by him against 

tha plaiotirr . 

The oourt quoted with aprrorel the language 

above quoted ln LfoOlothlln VS. Ctody, suprs, and held 

that the abstract and Index did not crette a valid judgsent Ilon. Sea, also, in acoord SZIREY ii% AL fs. TRr ,T 

CGxi~AKt OF TEXAS (CCA 193b) 98 5.8. (2df 24s. 

In BARTON vs. PARXS, 127 Y.U. (Ed) 37b (CCA 1939) 

a Judgment had been rendered In favor of Lmlso L. Parks 

against Y. H. IEaddox, John J. Burke, Cerl TZ. Barker, and 

saoh 0r thsaa ror (10,S40.00, with 10% interest and oost or 

court, and ror a ioreolosure or liens against certain 

propetlss against all of suoh defendants and the defendant John Bredanus. Ilo personal Judgment vas rendare 

against Bredamus. 

The name or John Bradems was omitted rrcm the 

sbstraot of judgment filed and his name was net entered 

upon ths alphabetloal lnder to such Judgment reoord 88 

reoulred br law. The eourt quoted with aptroral ths otae 

or malothlln ~6. Ocody, supra, and Shlrey vs. Trust Company ot Texas, supra, and held that the abstraot and 
. .z 

Hon. Tom A. Craven page 0 

index did not oreate a ralld judgment sgalnst the proparty of la. H. Kaddox for the solo reason that the abstract and Index Omitted the name of John Bredems. 

In OUAMNTY STAT2 BANK GP DONNA vs. EAFlIC2-J cOt!xTY RATIONAL BANK (CCA 1927) 293 3.W. 248, the abstraot 

or Judgment vau alphabstloall~ indexed in the name or 

each deiendant against whom Judgment was taken, but was 

not alphsbetloall~ Indexed In the name0 f aaJ plaintlit. 

Thr oourt aald: 

*The statute (Art. 5446) prOvidea that the 

olerk shall reoord all abstracts or Judgment 

illed in his oftloa ior that mrwzm. and ahall 

alao at the same time enter thekb~~~act *; 

the alphabetical index to suoh Judment rej 

ffi$nbkj%e judgment and t e number 

h n e r etoh plalntffi-and or Faog’ 

o”?e 

Z e h ~“~e~~n,ae~~~?hi~~~~~:~t kdr!; 

ooastr& to man that the names of eao& 

to the $&p -eETb~dXnZ??-aiX XZZn #= ant _ 

-- 

inthe lad& In alphabetloal order. 

. CLIVZR, 96 TRXAS 162. 14 3.X. 

must appear 

GIN coxi$NY vs 

451. The trial court having round that the 

Judgment *was no t l lphabstloall~ Indexed In the 

11-6 ot any plaIntirr*, the statutory requlrement was not met, the registration was ratally 

49r40tire 

i 

and the Judgment lien was not l ffeotuatsa .a Undsrsoorillg ours). 

In 5A.R ARTONLO LOAN I TRUST CCEPAHY VS. 3kVIS, 

236 5. U. b13 (CCA 1921) two defendants names vere omitted 

from the abstract and Index, and although no money Judgment was reoovered a lisn was roreolosed against them and the 

oourt held thet the abstract and index were Insurtlolent to 

oreate a lien. 

Xe take notloa oi the oaees oi VGN STEIN VS. 

TRSLLR, 23 .3. W. 1049 (CCA 1693) and BLUK m AL Vs. KiZYySSR 

(COA leQ4). 26 3. F. bbl, whloh rollows thb Trexler oars 

and awns to be authority ior the proposltlon that a substantial oompllanoe with the statutes Is sufrlolent and 
. . 4 

Hon. Tom A Craven, page 9 

that an abatraot that Is oorrcotlr indexed 1 n respeot 

ot one of several derendonts creates a lien agtlust 

& property. 

Vie believe that this line of oeses in so far 

as the point here l-mlved is cononrned wus render’ed 

obsolete by the oourt in YoOlothlIn vs. C5od7, supra, 

when it said: 

The opinion of the oose of Blum ~(1. Keyser, 

supra, is In partial ocnfliot with the opinion 

in this ease, tnd to the extent that It 1s in 

oonrllot it should be overruled. In that OOBO 

the oourt held that it WCS not nsoessary to 

plaoe the nme on the indirect lndox. To that 

extent +h’e thin;: the opIr.1~~ of the court in 

that oa3e Is erroneous.* 

The statutes provide tCfit t&e names ci e:kob 

plelr~tlft and of c~.ch defendant 13 the JuQment shall 

be Indexed, and not the names of eaoh I:laIntlff and 

of e-:ch defendant in the suit, and these n-es must 

be 1rAexed properly to oreate a lien. 

NYK, iiT AL vs. ZCiDY, 70 Taxes 434, e S.0;‘. 606; 

N=, 2,T AL ~8. CT,lBBLb 70 TCX(LS 458, e 3.\y. 60f; 

LioDANIEL. ET AL vs. KILN%. (CCA 19291 19 3.X. 

(24) 42s; aft. 3 preno Co&t-36 3.w. i24) 992, 

120. Texas 160; 

CCfXK VS. CGNCULST, (Clr. App.) 2 S.W. (2d) 992, 

l r r . ( c o t1 1 ~pp.1 4 113 . s.w. (24) 346; 

3ECbiITY WTIOML BICJX OF WIC!iiTA FALLS Vi. 

ALLiBd (CIT. A~p.1 261 S.7?. 1059. 

We believe that the yrrbpar test for the County 

Clerk to app17 In all crises is, the names of the plelntiffa and the 4etecdGnts appeorlng cn the rtce or the 

Ii a rarty is whown as a plalntIrf or t de- 

#%%%n the _ Judgm ent “1s name should be lndoxed. Th’e 

take it that Rich the abetraot oi Judgment iorm submltted the on17 derenatnt acpearlng upon the race or ths 

judgment was JO% Szlth. In such ease, oalp tho nems 

or John Doe, ~ltlntlff, and John Smith, defendant need 

be Indexed AD reoulred by Artlole 54M, RsElsed Ci~ll 
. . . 

P 

Hon. Tom A. Clark, page 10 

satuter, b!oClothlln va. COOQ, wqra. 

Con8oquontl~, r0U are rerpeotSul1~ l drlrad and 

it 18 the opinion of tbie department thst under Artlcl8 

5448, Rerlred Clrll Ytatute8, the Count7 Clerk of MoL~IWAO COUnt7, 8hOuld elltibr upon the elphabetIOa1 Index 

to hi8 judgmsllt reoord the nime of l a o h plaintiif and 

or caoh Urfendant appafulng upon the iaoe of a Judgmnt, 

in order to efiectuata a judgment Urn. 

YOreOter, it IS the OpiniOn Of thie department 

that it 1s the duty of the count7 olerk to enter In alphabetical or&w the nam of eeoh plaIntlit and of caoh 

defendant appearing upon the face of a judgment (in order 

to create e Judgment lien) althougb no Fersonal judgment 

for debt has been rendered againat ouoh plaintiff or derendant (a judgmmt in rem for foroolosure being miffcirnt); and even thoiiijhmc or117 Judgment rendered aplalnat 

any party to the juament 18 for torts. 

Yours very truly 

JDS/ob 

APPROVE3CCT 23, 1939 

4zLzhf2.G 

ATTOFUiEY GEHERAL OF TXXiY.3