Court Opinion

ID: 9868579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:42:05.817805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.230914
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear.
A petition to rehear is filed in which it is said that the bill herein charged that there was no notice given to Mrs. McCartney of the proceedings against her in the county court. That this bill was met by a demurrer only and the lack of notice therefore was admitted. We are asked to reconsider and suppress our opinion.
The argument is that the presumption in favor of the regularity of the proceedings in the county court is only a presumption which disappeared under the admission by demurrer that the charges in the bill were true. The familiar rule that presumptions are dissipated by contrary evidence is referred to and'it is urged that the constructive admission of the truth of the bill’s charges by demurrer has equal force.
*248The fault in this argument is that the presumption in favor of the regularity of proceedings in a court of general jurisdiction is a conclusive presumption unless it is impeached by the record itself. The record of the county court proceedings is filed as an exhibit and part of the bill in this case. That record, as pointed out in the opinion, does not show that due notice was not given to Mrs. McCartney prior to the hearing in the county court. We therefore indulged the presumption that such notice was given and cited authorities sustaining this view.
In Pope v. Harrison, 84 Tenn. 82, 90, it was said:
“Courts of record, having authority over the subject-matter, are competent to decide upon their own jurisdiction, and to exercise it to final judgment, without setting forth upon their records the facts and evidences upon which their decision is based; their records are absolute verities, not to be impugned by averment or proof to the contrary. ’ ’
In Magevney v. Karsch, 167 Tenn. 32, 46, 65 S. W. (2d) 562, 567, 92 A. L. R. 343, we said:
“Where an attack is made upon a judgment or decree of a court of general jurisdiction by parties or their privies, such judgment or decree cannot be questioned except for want of authority over the matters adjudicated upon, and this want of authority must be found in the record itself. In the absence of anything in the record to impeach the right of such court to determine the question involved, there is a conclusive presumption that it had such a right. Wilkins v. McCorkle, 112 Tenn. 688, 80 S. W. 834; Reinhardt v. Nealis, 101 Tenn. 169, 46 S. W. 446; Crocker v. Balch, supra [104 Tenn. 6, 55 S. W. 307].”
The bill and the exhibit thereto showing no want of authority in the county court to act in the matter presented to -it, the demurrer was properly sustained.
The petition to rehear is denied..