Court Opinion

ID: 9827937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:56:49.222348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:39.628936
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Conclusions on the disputed fact of notice to appellee as to the -claims of Mrs. Newgent to the property in controversy are not necessary in this case, and such conclusions are doubtless incorrect and are withdrawn.
Independent of the question of notice, or any other question that might arise in this case, the writer is of the opinion that the attempted judgment in the state court was a collateral attack upon the judgment of a federal court of competent jurisdiction, and that it could not be entertained. Doubtless the lower court based its opinion upon the question of collateral attack, for all of the defenses intended to be set up in regard to notice and other matters were held subject to demurrer. If the claim set up by appellant in this case be sustained, it would destroy the-effect of the judgment which held the property in controversy to be community and subject to the debts of the husband; it would practically undermine and destroy the judgment of the court in bankruptcy, and according to all rules should not be entertained/. Buchanan v. Bilger, 64 Tex. 589.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.