Court Opinion

ID: 9832746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:09:26.700402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:51.469997
License: Public Domain

*389ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
In the written argument upon the motion for rehearing, it is urged that we should presume that the waiver of service and agreement for judgment was indorsed upon the petition after it was filed. As stated in the original opinion, we think the contrary is manifest from the recitals in the judgment. But this is put beyond cavil by the agreement of the parties, which is incorporated in the statement of facts. It is as follows: “It was agreed that plaintiff’s petition in cause No. 2194, County Court of Hunt County, Texas, J. M. Clymer v. J. C. O’Neal et al., under which plaintiff claims in this suit, and on which the judgment is based, was filed September 16, 1896, and the judgment rendered on the same day, and that the only service or citation and agreement was that which was indorsed on said petition, and was the only service had upon said J. C. O’Neal and T. E. Byrd before said petition was filed, and it contains the same recital of service as does said judgment, which is: We accept service on the within petition, waive citation and service, and agree that the petition may be filed and judgment taken at any time after the first Monday in September, 1896. (Signed) J. C. O’Neal, T. E. Byrd.’”
Such a waiver being prohibited by statute, was void and of no effect, and the court therefore had no jurisdiction to render the judgment. The court being without jurisdiction, the judgment was void and subject to collateral attack. McCrary v. Ware, 51 Pac. Rep., 293.
We find no good reason to change our disposition of the case, and the motion will be overruled.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.