Court Opinion

ID: 9675348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:50:16.024621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:29.626708
License: Public Domain

Gillespie, J.
dissenting.
This case is a difficult one to resolve with assurance. With deference, I disagree. What we have, I think, is a voidable judgment; one entered through error and which would have been reversed or set aside on direct attack; but not void. Not being void, it is unassailable collaterally-
In the original suit resulting in the judgment under attack, plaintiff, in a suit denominated in a replevin action, joined in one suit his affidavit and declaration in replevin, conforming in all respects with the procedural law, with a suit for a money judgment based on the note evidencing the purchase price of the property, in all respects making an adequate pleading in that respect. These two actions were not inconsistent. Plaintiff could have brought one action on his notes for the recovery of the purchase price of the property, and in the same court at the same time another action in replevin to re*630cover possession of the property to protect Ms lien. Bnt he proceeded in the same suit, improperly joining the two canses of actions. It was simply a case of mis joiner, and defendant did not appear and object. Defendant conld not have suffered an injustice without a remedy as a result of what was done. If plaintiff had failed to equitably deal with the property as security, defendant had his remedy.
A careful analysis of the cases cited do not reveal any authority of this jurisdiction authorizing* a judgment debtor to wait until years have passed and collaterally attack such a judgment. Remedy for misjoinder is demurrer. 1 Am. Jur., Actions, Sec. 69; Potomac Ins. Co. v. Wilkerson, 213 Miss. 520, 57 So. 2d 158.
The court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. Under these circumstances “it is immaterial how irregular the proceedings, or how erroneous the judgment, may have been,” the judgment may not he impeached collaterally. 31 Am. Jur., Judgments, Sec. 583.
The repute of courts and the solemnity of judicial proceeding are heavily involved in such a case as this. The presumption of validity of a final adjudication of a court is one of the strongest known to the law, more especially where the court is one of general jurisdiction.
I refrain from burdening the reports with the wealth of authority bearing on the questions involved, and express the hope that my apprehensions that this case will plague us in the future are unfounded.
ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND TO CORRECT JUDGMENT
Ethridge, J.
 Appellees Arch McGowan and Mrs. Maude McGowan and their attorneys have filed a motion to allow attorneys ’ fees, and in effect to correct the judgment *631of April 13, 1956, adjudicating disposition of the funds held by the State Highway Department among the ap-pellees. This issue was not submitted for consideration by the trial court, and motion is here made for the first time. We have carefully considered this motion, and have concluded that this Court has no jurisdiction of the same as an original proposition. Hence the motion is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion for attorneys ’ fees dismissed without prejudice.
All justices concur.