Court Opinion

ID: 9858445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:24:00.476472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:24.665192
License: Public Domain

BATEMAN, J.,
not sitting.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In appellee’s motion for rehearing it is contended that we erred in our original opinion by placing the burden of proof on the judgment creditor, rather than the movant, to prove proper issuance of alias execution. It must be observed that this action was brought by the judgment debt- or, seeking declaratory judgment that the execution in question had not been issued properly and therefore, that the judgment was dormant. In most cases the action is brought by the judgment creditor to declare such judgment to be revived and the language in those cases usually is to the effect that the burden of proof is upon the “plaintiff.” However, our supreme court in Pace Corp v. Jackson, 155 Tex. 179, 284 S.W.2d 340, 350 (1955), has stated that there is no strict and rigid rule that the plaintiff has the burden of proof. The court reasoned that the time sequence in the filing of pleadings neither relieves the party asserting a right of his responsibilities nor deprives him of his advantages.
Moreover, when the plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action is seeking a declaration of nonliability, as in the case at bar, the court will ignore the formal position of the parties, and place the burden of proof upon the party asserting the affirmative of the controlling issues. McCart v. Cain, 416 S.W.2d 463,466 (Tex.Civ.App. —Forth Worth 1967, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Serna v. Cochrum, 290 S.W.2d 383, 386 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1956, writ ref’d n. r. e.) ; 1 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice § 2.06 at 186 (1965); 35 Texas L.Rev. 133, 134 (1957).
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
BATEMAN, J., not sitting.