Court Opinion

ID: 9833335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:37:51.539741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:42:37.011935
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our former opinion in this case in answering appellant’s contention that the judgment of the court below should be reversed because it is apparent of record that the court erred in rendering judgment canceling the execution under which the land was sold, we say: “The sufficiency of the execution was not an issue in the case, and that part of the judgment canceling the execution was unauthorized, but it in no way injured appellant, because the writ was functus officio long before the rendition of the judgment. The cancellation of the writ of execution in no way affects the validity of appellant’s judgment for costs, and, while it was wholly unauthorized and an entirely unnecessary and useless part of the judgment in this ease, it does not affect the validity of such judgment.” This statement may not be entirely accurate. While the sufficiency of the execution on its face was not attacked, it was contended by plaintiffs that the execution was void because the judgment for costs upon which it was issued was unauthorized; said costs having been paid prior to the rendition of said judgment. It is manifest that this judgment cannot be collaterally attacked on this ground, and a judgment of the court below canceling the execution on this ground would be erroneous. But this is not an error apparent of record, and, in the absence of a *620proper assignment presenting the question, we are not authorized to disturb the judgment on this ground. That the execution was not adjudged void on this ground is evident from the charge of the court which instructs the jury, in effect, that the judgment for costs was a valid and subsisting judgment, and execution was properly issued thereon. If the question was properly presented, we would hold that the judgment canceling the execution should be set aside, but nevertheless the judgment setting aside the sale and awarding appellees the land should be affirmed.
With this correction of the statement in our former opinion the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.