Court Opinion

ID: 9668598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:19:04.302861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:46.404267
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellants pointing to the fact that the pleadings in prior suit No. 6351 disclosed that Mrs. Brown was a feme covert correctly state that the burden was on *308Singer to plead and prove facts sufficient to overcome her disabiliy of coverture. Giles v. First National Bank of Brownfield, Tex.Civ.App., 257 S.W.2d 945, Amarillo Civil Appeals. It follows that the judgment in Cause No. 6351 was not void. If a final judgment, it effectively adjudicated the nonliability of Mrs. Brown on the note and mortgage. It did nothing more. It did not adjudicate the title or right of possession of either of the sewing machines. It did not adjudicate appellant’s plea of rescission. In fact, the judgment reflects an intentional failure to rule on the plea for rescission. If the judgment in Cause No. 6351 was not a final judgment, it could not be the basis of a plea of res adjudicata. If it was a final judgment, it did not adjudicate the right of rescission which, alone, is accomplished by the judgment herein.
The motion is overruled.