The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-06-07
THE COURTS
synopsis of Decisions of the supreme
Court.

I'D. Treadwsy, ct al, VS.. K. Easlburn;
from Lamsr county. l, When it is sought
in A collateral proceeding to impesch the
;udyment OF domestic court Of record, Of
General iuris iiciion, on the groucd Of want Of
;urisdiction over the persos Of the defendant.
The question must be tried on the record
itself. 2. Under the statute which provides
.thst no Judgment shall be rendered in suits
nv attachment unless citation or summons
has been served in the ordinary mode or BY
publicstiop," it has beeen definitely settled,
IA Texas, G60) that the question Of jurisdic.
ton is not effected bv the levy of the attach
ment on the land in the controversy. g. ALI
reasonable presumptions must be INDUCED
in favor Of the validity of the proceedings of
domestic courts of record, having genera
Jurisdiction. But if the uncontradicted 70.
Sci,sls in the record show aflirms,ively, that
the court did not have jurisdiction over the
subject matter, or that Jurisdiction over thu
person did not attach then presumption TO
The contrary viii not be INDUCED. 4 To de-
termine whether the record shows affirm
stiyely that there has been proper service.
the whole of it should be taken together, and
when thus considered, if thst portion which
relates 10 this question shows atlirmatively
such character OF service rs is not authorized
by law, or such defective service, that
Judgment by default rendered thereon would
be void ard not voidsble only, AID the re.
msinder of the record is silent on the subject,
not showing any finding of tho court from
which it may be inferred that there was
o,her ervice or an appearance.it would appear
sfirmatvely that jurisdiction Of the court
did not attach. But if other parts of the
record, particularly the judgment, recites
due service of process, or other facts which
would give the court jurisdiction, then it
would appear sffirmatiy ely that jurisdiction
did attach; and the general rule would up.
ply that 10 collateral proceeding this re-
cs in the record imports absolute verify
(5) A much more rigid rule obtains in case
Of C lateral attack upon the judgment. of a
domestic court of general jurisdiction than
in direct proceeding to SGT II aside. r..
versed and remanded. Bonner, j.
P j. Hardy VS. Spencer Ford, to use, etc:
An action of trespass to try title can
not be- brD ught in the name of one party for
the usa of another. This suit was instituted
in 1878, in the name of Ford to the use OF
w. Plaintiff amended IN 1875 so ss to sue
TO the use of II. Exceptions filed at subse.
Quent term, February Is 9, wers overIuled
BY the special judge, but IL nevertheless ap
pears that he ordered the suit to proceed in
the name Of f. alone as plaintiff, which re.
suited in mistrial. Defendant had fled a
plea 10 the nature of reconvention, which Oh
motion was stricken out After mistrisl the
iuit stood in FS. name alone until April,
1881, when over objection, The regular Judge
permitted plaintiff 10 amend his peadngs so
as to sue to the use of w. as originally
Held, that the court erred in permitting the
suit to be maintained 10 F's name to use OF
W.. and that the action should have pro-
ceeded in F's. name alone as the holder OF
legal title under the sheriff's sale, or in the
name of the party claiming to be equitable
owner under said sale. Although brought
wrong, the irregulsri,y in this suit could
hsve been cured by amendment. Reversed
and remanded. Gould j.