Court Opinion

ID: 9446416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:53:37.368385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:38.323463
License: Public Domain

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
Of the opinion that under settled law the effort in this suit constitutes a collateral attack on judgments which, containing plain jurisdictional recitals and no recital contrary thereto, must be accorded absolute verity and are, therefore, not subject to collateral attack,1 I dissent from the opinion and decision of the majority.
The rule here relied on is thus correctly stated in Bemis v. Bayou Development Co., Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 645, at page 648:
“In other words, this court fails to join the appellant in finding any fundamental error apparent upon the face of the foreclosure-judgment, but contrarily, is constrained to hold that its given recitals, as against the collateral attack herein made thereon, imported absolute verity to the extent that the pleadings, the citation, and other court papers appertaining thereto, cannot be looked to for any contradiction thereof, and that, in consequence, this controversy ends there; such is the law of Texas, as is made manifest by these authorities: Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Albright, 126 Tex. 485, 87 S.W.2d 1092; Levy v. Roper, 113 Tex. 356, 256 S.W. 251; Brown v. Clippinger, 113 Tex. 364, 256 S.W. 254; Hopkins v. Cain, 105 Tex. 591, 143 S.W. 1145; Martin v. Burns, 80 Tex. 676, 16 S.W. 1072; Chapman v. Kellogg, Tex.Com.App., 252 S.W. 151; Pure Oil Co. v. Reece, 124 Tex. 476, 78 S.W.2d 932; Hartel v. Dishman, 135 Tex. 600, 145 S.W.2d 865; Wixom v. Bowers, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 896, writ refused for want of merit; Switzer v. Smith, Tex.Com.App., 300 S.W. 31, 68 A.L.R. 377 et seq.; Treadway v. Eastburn, 57 Tex. 209; Crawford v. McDonald, 88 Tex. 626, 33 S.W. 325.”2
This does not mean that I am of the opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed throughout. Quite to the contrary, I think it should be affirmed only to the extent that it holds that this is a collateral attack on the judgments *518and therefore cannot be maintained and that it should be reversed as to all other features of the judgment, with the result that, while the right of plaintiffs to seek relief in this collateral proceeding is denied, their right to attack the judgments directly in the court which entered them would not be prejudiced or in any way affected hereby. Cf. Kelley v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 649, where a bill to review a judgment brought in the same court which had theretofore entered it was entertained. Indeed, I agree with the statement on page 511 of 259 F.2d in the opinion of the majority:
“Appellees contend, and the trial court agreed, that the deeds under which appellants claim title to their respective lots were void for lack of adequate description of any land described in the state court suits. We think the trial court did not and neither do we reach this issue. The appellants need not show here any more than that they had a justi-ciable interest in the subject matter of the litigation; that is that they had a colorable claim to the land that was then before the court. We do not need to decide that appellants have good title to these tracts and we do not do so. We decide only that their allegations and proof entitle them to ask a court to look into their claim that the judgments were void.”
In addition, however, to our fundamental differences on the question of collateral attack, I regard as in direct contradiction of the law as established in Texas, Durst v. Park, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 301, and dissent from the conclusion of the court that the judgment in No. 8399 was made void by the fact that the affidavit for publication was filed two days before the filing of the suit.
Other holdings of the court from which I dissent as in complete contradiction of the statutes of Texas and the decisions thereunder are: (1) that there was a violation of the Texas statutes in the failure of the plaintiffs in their petition in the publication suits to plead their titles specifically; (2) that their failure to introduce in evidence or otherwise bring up for adjudication in the publication suits the validity vel non and the effect of the instruments, the existence of which had caused them to institute the suits, constituted fraud requiring the setting aside of the judgments.
As clearly appears in the statutes and rules, the requirement for pleading title specifically, though at one time existing, had been repealed long before the suits here involved were brought. The applicable statutes and rules governing publication suits specifically provide that plaintiffs are required only to show a prima facie title and no decision in Texas has ever held, nor under the law could hold, that the failure to offer evidence as to the defendants’ claim of title constituted fraud.
I respectfully dissent from the opinion and judgment.
Rehearing denied: HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, dissenting.

. Of the uniform multitude of cases to that effect, these, some of which are suits by publication, may be cited: Wixom v. Bowers, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 898 at page 900; Hartel v. Dishman, 135 Tex. 600, 145 S.W.2d 865; Chapman v. Kellogg, Tex.Com.App., 252 S.W. 151, at pages 158-159.

. See also Mills v. Baird, Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 312; State v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 950, 952, and Alexander v. Hagedorn, 148 Tex. 565, 226 SW.2d 996, for a full statement and discussion of the controlling law, not only in Texas but generally, on collateral attack and extrinsic and intrinsic fraud.