Court Opinion

ID: 9743650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:39:35.28397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.581802
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Givan, J.
I dissent from the majority opinion in this case. The majority cite authority for the proposition that a judgment which is regular on its face is not subject to collateral attack. In my opinion these authorities are correct and should govern in this case. The exceptions to this rule set out in the majority opinion I do not believe are well taken under the facts of this case. The majority contend that there is an alie*585gation of a meritorious defense to the judgment in that the appellant raises the question concerning attorneys’ fees.
It is my belief that Burns’ Ind. Stat. 19-12-109 is applicable to the appellant in this case. As an indorser the appellant accepts the tenor of the instrument which included the obligation for attorney fees under the statute. See Burns Ind. Stat. 19-3-414 and 19-3-417 and the comments to the official text thereunder.
There is nothing in the record indicating that appellant had any other claim to a meritorious defense.
I would, therefore, affirm the trial court.
Note. — Reported in 255 N. E. 2d 662.