Court Opinion

ID: 9833340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:38:03.309511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.694575
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We see no reason to change our holding with respect to the necessity of pleading and proving that the judgment sued upon comes within the class of judgments to which full faith and credit must be given. As stated by us in the original opinion,, we cannot aid the judgment by applying our law because the same does not permit judgments for permanent alimony. The question, then, is whether the party asking that full faith and credit should be given to a judgment for future installments of alimony should be required to show affirmatively by pleading and proof that such judgment is one falling within the first class described in the case of Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1, 30 Sup. Ct. 682, 54 L. Ed. 905, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1068, and not one falling in the second class described in said ease,' namely, one rendered in a state in which under its laws the' right to receive the alimony is discretionary to such an extent that no absolute or vested right attaches to receive the installments, even though no application to annul or modify the decree had been made prior to the installments becoming due. We think that in this character of case such laws must be pleaded and proven, or else the court cannot determine that the judgment is one to which full faith and credit must be given. The issue is clear cut, whether this is a matter to be shown by plaintiff, or whether defendant must, if relying upon such laws, show the same as matter of defense. We are of the opinion that he who presents the judgment showing on its face that it is for future installments of alimony and asks that full faith and credit should be given thereto should show that the law of the state makes such installments final, and not subject to modification aftef their accrual.
However, we conclude that, having held that no cause of action was stated in the petition, it would not be proper to affirm the judgment. A general demurrer was filed, and was either overruled or not presented. The record shows no • disposition thereof. Plaintiff should not be deprived of an opportunity to amend, such as she would have had, if the defect in her petition had been called to her attention in the trial court. Defendants must press their demur-’ *915rers and exceptions in the trial court. If they do not, and fundamental errors are noticed, justice requires that the case be reversed so as to give plaintiff the same opportunity to amend which he would have had if the defects had been pointed out below. Cooper v. Marchbanks, 22 Tex. 1; Jirou v. Jirou, 136 S. W. 498; Mullaly v. Ivory, 30 S. W. 259; Scanlon v. Railway Co., 86 S. W. 931.
The motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment is reversed and remanded.