Court Opinion

ID: 9831405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:04:54.542059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.556435
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[20-22] Some of the authorities cited by us in the original opinion are not strictly applicable to suits by publication against a nonresident, but refer to domestic judgments. They were cited by us as illustrative of the question of notice to amend the judgment. We did not for a moment question the right of the party affected by a judgment obtained in a suit by publication to show by the record there was no service, either in a direct or collateral proceeding, or such facts as would show the court did not have jurisdiction, or such facts as would render the judgment void. In a collateral proceeding if the judgment on its face shows jurisdiction, then the party claiming under it is not required to go further. If the adverse party wishes to assail the judgment the burden is on him to show that there was no service, such as required by law. This is supported, we think, by Hopkins v. Cain, 105 Tex. 591, 143 S. W. 1145. Headnote No. 2 of that case, which correctly reflects the holding therein, is as follows:
“Where the judgment assailed recites service, the court will be bound to accept that as correct. In the absence of such recital in a judgment obtained on service by publication, it will look to the entire record to determine it, the *792burden being on the attacking party; and the statement of facts is by_ the statute made a part of the record where judgment is against unknown heirs.”
[23-25] In the amended, judgment service is shown to have been obtained the required length of time. The court had jurisdiction by virtue thereof and by the seizure of the debt or property by garnishment, and jurisdiction to render the judgment at the August term; but a mistake was made in its recitals, and at the January term following this mistake was corrected. The amended or corrected judgment does not recite notice of the motion. The burden, therefore, was on appellant to show there was no notice. This it attempted to do by showing the clerk issued none. Notice could have been given, in other ways or could have been waived. The appellant does not show or negative these facts. The burden resting on it was not thereby discharged and the amended judgment shown to be void. The presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is that notice was waived or given in some way or the judgment would not have been entered. The filing of the amended pleading requiring service is not analogous. It is the pleading which states the cause of action and gives the right to a judgment; hence citation is required. We do not think the authorities on such a condition applicable to this case where only notice is required of the motion to amend the judgment by the record. We should rather presume if notice was not waived appellant would have proven that fact, either by the record or by aliunde evidence. Hardy v. Beaty, 84 Tex. 562, 19 S. W. 778, 31 Am. St. Rep. 80, supports this proposition, and we believe it has not been departed from in this state. Much is said by way of discussion in numerous decisions, but the rule appears as stated by the decisions above cited.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.