Crider v. Sutherland

• Decision Date: 14 October 1919
• Parties: CRIDER v. SUTHERLAND ET AL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

216 S.W. 57

186 Ky. 7

CRIDER v. SUTHERLAND ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 14, 1919

Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Graves County.

Action by Mrs. Nannie Crider against T. J. Sutherland and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Webb &amp Weaks, of Mayfield, for appellant.

W. J Webb, of Mayfield, for appellees.

CLAY C.J.

Nannie Crider brought this suit against T. J. Sutherland and others to recover a small tract of land situated in Graves county. The defendants pleaded in substance that they acquired plaintiff's title to the property by a commissioner's deed executed pursuant to a judgment rendered against her. Plaintiff replied that she had been adjudged and was of unsound mind at the time of the rendition of the judgment against her; that at said time she had no committee, nor father, nor guardian, but was a married woman and had a husband; that no summons was ever executed on her husband, or on any other person for her, except on the plaintiff herself that no guardian ad litem was ever appointed to make defense nor did any guardian ad litem ever make any defense for her; and that by reason of these facts the judgment and the deed executed pursuant thereto were void and passed no title to the defendants. In another paragraph, she alleged that the deeds, through which the defendants claimed title, were obtained by fraud. The defendants demurred to the reply, and the demurrer was sustained, and judgment rendered in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

This being an action in ejectment, and defendants having relied on the judgment in question as constituting a link in their chain of title, and plaintiff having replied that the judgment was void for want of jurisdiction, the attack on the judgment was collateral and not direct. Dennis v. Alves, 132 Ky. 345, 113 S.W. 483; Id., 117 S.W. 287.

Judgments rendered in a court of general jurisdiction cannot be collaterally attacked unless the want of jurisdiction appears on the record, and this rule applies to infants and lunatics as well as to adults and persons of sound mind. Furthermore a pleading making such an attack is not sufficient, which merely alleges the absence of the jurisdictional fact; it must go further and allege that the record affirmatively shows the absence of such fact. Hence, a pleading such as the reply in this case, which did not allege what the record showed...