Court Opinion

ID: 9828460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:23:41.008928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:48.421356
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The main contention in the motion is that Mrs. Hayes had no right to attack the divorce decree in the absence of a supplemental petition, showing that the decree *503pleaded by appellee was void, and specifically setting up tbe reasons wby it was void. Our conclusion is that she could do .this without a special pleading. Article 1829, V. S. C. S. 1918, provides that it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff to deny any special matter of defense pleaded by the defendant but that such plea shall be regarded as denied unless expressly admitted. While not required to do so, the appellee specially pleaded the rendition of the judgment by the district court of Oklahoma, which dissolved the bonds of matrimony, and the necessary implication is that it was a valid judgment. The introduction of a copy of the judgment prima facie established the fact pleaded, but it is settled law in this state that a decree of divorce, rendered in a foreign jurisdiction, is a judgment in rem and may be collaterally attacked in the courts of this state for fraud upon the jurisdiction, even when such judgment is pleaded as res judicata by a party to it. Richmond v. Sangster (Tex. Civ. App.) 217 S. W. 723, and authorities cited. While in that case, and in the Givens Case, cited in the original opinion (Tex. Civ. App.) 195 S. W. 877, the pleadings had set out the fact showing the invalidity of the judgments, this was. not necessary under the article of the statute above referred to. Brooks v. Pegg (Tex.) 8 S. W. 595; Martin v. Teal (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 691; League v. Scott, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 318, 61 S. W. 521; Bradley v. Deroche, 70 Tex. 465, 7 S. W. 779; Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 1013; Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U. S. 71, 13 Sup. Ct. 481, 37 L. Ed. 373 ; 21 R. C. L. 555, § 115. This is in no sense a suit based upon a foreign judgment, nor is^he diyorce decree of Oklahoma pleaded as res judicata by any one who was a party or privy to it. The appellee simply alleges the granting of the divorce as a fact, which, if true, would preclude the appellant from recovering as the wife of the deceased. Being a stranger to the judgment the appellee is in no position to insist- that the rules governing pleas of nul tiel record and res judicata are applicable. Bertrand v. Bingham, 13 Tex. 266; White v. Holland (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 611.
The motion is overruled.