Case Name: NEWSOM v. STATE
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-12-21
Citations: 236 S.W. 228
Docket Number: No. 6662
Parties: NEWSOM v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 236
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
NEWSOM v. STATE.
(No. 6662.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
Dec. 21, 1921.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1922.)
1. Appeal and error <s=>719(1) — Only fundamental errors apparent on record considered without assignment of errors.
Where no error is assigned, the Court of Civil Appeals is authorized to consider only such errors as are fundamental and apparent on the face of the record.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Attorney and client <@=¿>54 — Verdict In disbarment case need not specifically find fraudulent or dishonorable conduct or malpractice.
Under Rev. St. arts. 325-330, providing for the disbarment of attorneys guilty of fraudulent or dishonorable conduct or malpractice, and prescribing the procedure, it was not necessary for a verdict finding defendant guilty as charged in the complaint to find specifically that defendant was guilty of fraudulent'or dishonorable conduct or malpractice.
Appeal from District Court, Gonzales County; M. Kennon, Judge.
Suit by J. B. Newsom against the State. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
J. B. Newsom, of Houston, in pro. per.

Opinion:
SMITH, J.
On January 25-, 1904, a judgment was rendered in the district court of Gonzales county adjudging appellant guilty of "fraudulent and dishonorable conduct and malpractice," revoking, his license to practice law, and disbarring him from practicing his profession in the courts of the state. The judgment was based upon the verdict of a jury. No appeal was taken from this judgment. On June 22, 1921, appellant filed a suit in the same court to set aside the former judgment. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained, the plaintiff declined to amend, the suit was dismissed, and this appeal is from the judgment of dismissal.
No assignments of error were filed in the trial court, and none are contained in appellant's brief, appellant being content to simply assert, as a proposition following a meagre statement of the nature and result of the suit, that— •
"A judgment void upon its face is subject to an attack at any time, regardless of the statute of limitation."
This proposition is followed by no statement, except a reference to the judgment sought to be set aside.
No error being assigned, this court is authorized to consider only such errors as may be fundamental and apparent upon the> face of the record. If the general demurrer was improperly sustained, that W|ould be such an error as could be here considered. But we have carefully examined the petition, and are quite clear that the general demurrer thereto was properly sustained. This conclusion leaves nothing else to be considered, and the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
<S:=>Por other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes