Court Opinion

ID: 9829449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:18:44.936513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:01.221498
License: Public Domain

On Second Rehearing.
Appellants vigorously attack the ruling that the judgment in cause No. 7493 was res judicata of the superiority pf the attachment lien to Butler’s title. The general rule, of course, is that parties defendant to a judg-. ment are not bound- by it in subsequent controversies between each other, 'unless by cross-pleadings tliey became adversaries in the action in which the judgment was rendered. This rule, however, is not without its exceptions. 15 R. C. L. 1013, Sect. 487; note 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650. In our opinion this case is an exception.
,(5] The deed from Garrett and Seastrunk, as it appears in the statement of facts, contains no express covenant, but it “granted” and “conveyed” the Eastland land, and *1073The deed from Garrett and Seastrunk, as it appears in the statement of facts, contains no express covenant, but it “granted” and “conveyed” the Eastland land, and
 In an action for breach of the covenant of warranty, the warrantor, is bound by a judgment rendered against the covenantee for the land in an action to which the war-rantor was not a party, but of which he had been notified by the covenantee and called upon to defend. In such case the judgment not only establishes eviction, but that it was under title paramount. Buchanan v. Kauffman & Runge, 65 Tex. 235; Sachse v. Loeb, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 536, 101 S. W. 450; Rawle on Covenants of Title (5th Ed.) § 125.
In the present case it is not affirmatively shown that Garrett and Seastrunk were called upon by appellee to defend his title in cause No. 7493 against the attachment lien; but they were parties to that suit, and it was their legal duty to defend the title against such incumbrance. They had the opportunity and right so to do. Under such circumstances they will not be heard in the present action to question the conclusive.ness of the judgment in cause No. 7493, establishing the inferiority of Butler’s title to the attachment lien. Brown v. Hearon, 66 Tex. 63, 17 S. W. 395; Gordon v. Thorp (Tex. Civ. App.) 53 S. W. 357; Carnes v. Carnes, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 610, 64 S. W. 877; Brader v. Zbranek (Tex. Civ. App.) 213 S. W. 331; Louis v. Trustees, etc., 109 U. S. 168, 3 Sup. Ct. 92, 27 L. Ed. 892; notes in 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650, and 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 732.