Court Opinion

ID: 9833660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:55:37.077173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.661298
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing and to Certify.
[5] Appellant insists that the agreement upon his part to pay the sum of $300 annually to Mrs. Blanton for the support and maintenance of their children was merged in the decree rendered by the district court in the divorce proceedings, and that the ruling of this court that Mrs. Blanton can maintain the present suit upon such agreement is in conflict with the well-settled doctrine of merger to the effect that, when a cause of action has ripened into judgment, a subsequent suit between the same parties cannot be maintained upon the original cause of action.
This is not the effect of our ruling. The opinion is predicated upon the equally well-settled rule that a judgment void for want of authority to render same does not merge the original cause of action and constitutes no bar to further litigation upon the same cause of action. 23 Oye. 1124, and cases there cited. If the decree in the divorce suit is to be construed as a judgment in person-am against appellant for the payment annually of $300, based upon the agreement herein sued upon, then that portion of the judgment is void for want of authority to render same. Bond v. Bond 41 Tex. Civ. App. 129, 90 S. W. 1128; Ligon v. Ligon, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 392, 87 S. W. 838; Barry v. Barry (Tex. Civ. App.) 131 S. W. 1142; Martin v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 148 S. W. 344; Gully v. Gully (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S. W. 1178; Pape v. Pape, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 99, 35 S. W. 479.
And under the rule of law above indicated it did not operate as a merger of the agreement to make such payments, and a suit upon the original agreement can be maintained.
We think there is no occasion to certify any of the questions presented by this appeal.
The motions for rehearing and to certify are overruled.