Court Opinion

ID: 9832450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:55:23.529878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.930165
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[5] Appellant insists in his motion for rehearing that, if the judgment is void in part, then it is necessarily void as a whole, and that, if it is void in whole, it is not obligatory upon him to tender any part thereof before he would be entitled to an injunction restraining its execution. The rule in this state is that a judgment may be void in part and valid in all other respects. Hollis v. Dashiell, 52 Tex. 187; Butler v. Holmes, 68 S. W. 52.
[6] We think the decree of the county court, in so far as it adjudicates the questions of liability of all the co-obligors upon the note to the plaintiff Lumkin, is valid. All of the makers of said note waived citation and entered an appearance upon the filing of the original petition. That portion, however, which seeks to settle the relative rights of the joint obligors as between themselves, is void as to appellant, because no process was issued and served upon him upon the filing of the cross-bill.
If the record before us had shown that the execution which was threatened to be levied upon appllant’s property was issued in favor of plaintiff Lumkin, and was based upon the valid part of said judgment, the appellant could not enjoin its collection at all, since the plaintiff Lumkin had the right to collect from him the whole amount if he saw fit to do so. However, the record being silent upon that point, and appellant’s bill having admitted his liability to the extent of one-sixth of the judgment, and not offering to pay that amount, we held, and still hold, that the court did not err in refusing the writ.
The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.