Court Opinion

ID: 9833803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:02:50.71635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.937487
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Plaintiffs in error, by their able motion for rehearing, assert that our holdings are in conflict with Cline v. Niblo, 117 Tex. 474, 8 S.W.2d 633, 638, 66 A.L.R. 916, and Millikan v. Coker, 90 S.W.2d 902, 904. We are of the opinion that the holdings in the Cline Case are not applicable here. It is observed that writ of error has been granted by the Supreme Court in the Millikan Case.
Our attention has been called to the fact that in our original opinion we overruled without discussion plaintiffs in error’s fifth proposition, to the effect that the judgment in cause No. 4648 was void because without sufficient pleadings to support it. It has been held . by the courts of this State in line with the rule stated in 34 C.J. p. 560: “A judgment cannot be impeached collaterally on account of any defect in the pleadings which are amendable, even though such pleadings are bad on general demurrer.” Thus the validity of a judgment cannot be impugned by showing that a wrong form of action was chosen or that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of ación, if it contained sufficient matter to challenge the attention of the court as to its merits. See Moore v. Perry, 13 Tex.Civ.App., 204, 35 S.W. 838; Conner v. McAfee, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W. 646, writ denied; Permian Oil Co. v. Smith, Tex. Sup., 73 S.W.2d 490, 111 A.L.R. 1152. The pleadings in cause No. 4648 sought a foreclosure of a lien which attached to the land while Harvey Benson was a single man. It is true that such pleading was de-murrable but its allegations challenged the action of the court. While it is shown in these proceedings that L. Schwartz and Co. note and lien w;ere invalid as to the 200 acres claimed by plaintiffs in error as their homestead; the record in cause No. 4648 does not disclose such invalidity. In the case of State Mortgage Corp. v. Ludwig, 121 Tex. 268, 48 S.W.2d 950, our Supreme Court say (page 955) :
“It is settled law in this state that a sale of land by a trustee under deed of trust for the payment of a debt, of which part is void and part valid, is not a nullity. [Citing authorities.] There is stronger reason for refusing to adjudge void a sale by a public officer under a regular judgment of the district court, of which part is valid and unsatisfied.”
It has been held in this State that the homestead right is one that may be waived by the party entitled to it. Nichols v. Dibrell, 61 Tex. 539; Shonaker v. Citizens, etc., Co., Tex.Civ.App., 8 S.W.2d 566, writ refused.
Plaintiffs in error were legally cited to appear and answer in cause No. 4648; they failed to appear and assert their homestead right. In such proceedings their homestead right does not appear upon the face of the record. They were not prevented from appearing and claiming that right by fraud, acccident, or the acts of the opposite party.
Mr. Chief Justice Willie, in the Nichols Case, supra, said, with reference to the homestead right:
“It has been frequently attempted in 'this state to exempt it from the operation of the rule, but has always been held that when it might have been pleaded in the former suit it was too late to set it up in the latter.”
Believing we correctly determined the case in our original opinion, the motion for rehearing is ■ overruled.