W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Little
| Decision Date | 15 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 3463.,3463. |
| Citation | 32 S.W.2d 214 |
| Parties | W. T. RAWLEIGH CO. v. LITTLE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lamb County; Charles Clements, Judge.
Action by the W. T. Rawleigh Company against J. J. Little. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Nordyke & Pardue, of Lubbock, for appellant.
Bills & Hazel, of Littlefield, for appellee.
The appellant, as plaintiff below, filed this suit in the district court of Lamb county, Tex., against appellee, as defendant, to recover the sum of $1,588.08, together with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the 26th day of April, 1926, alleged to be due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff upon a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the district court of Bryan county, Okl., and for all costs of that suit.
The defendant answered by general demurrer and general denial and by special plea collaterally attacking the judgment declared upon as being void for the reason that the district court of Bryan county, state of Oklahoma, was without jurisdiction of the person of appellee, in that he was not served with any process, citation, or summons issued out of said court in said cause or in any other suit against appellee, and that he never entered his appearance or confessed judgment in any such suit. Further, defendant pleads that said judgment is null and void and without force, because that at the time said suit was filed in the district court of Bryan county, Okl., and for a long time prior thereto and at the time said purported judgment was rendered in said cause on the 25th day of May, 1927, this defendant did not reside in Bryan county, Okl., or in any other county or place in Oklahoma, but that he resided in the state of Texas at the time said suit was filed, and for a long time prior thereto and at the time said purported judgment was rendered and at the time of the filing of the suit, such defendant was making the state of Texas his permanent residence and place of abode. Further, defendant alleges that he did not know that a judgment had been rendered against him in said cause in Bryan county, Okl., until a long time after May 25, 1927, and until the filing of this suit, and further in this connection says that no summons or process of any nature whatever was served on this defendant in said cause in the district court of said Bryan county, Okl.
There are a number of questions presented by the record on this appeal, but in our opinion our decision upon the questions which present the invalidity of the judgment of the Bryan county court will dispose of the case on this appeal and render unnecessary the decision of the other questions.
The questions arising on the attack on the judgment are: First, do the recitals contained in the judgment of the district court of Bryan county, Okl., that each of the defendants in that cause are found by the court to have been duly and legally served in the time prescribed by law with personal service of summons therein, preclude such judgment from attack, it being a foreign judgment? Second, the defendant having testified that he was not a resident of the county of Bryan and state of Oklahoma at the time of the filing of the suit or at the time the judgment was rendered and was not in the state of Oklahoma at such times, but on the contrary that he was at those times a resident of the state of Texas, does this authorize the trial court in this cause to instruct the jury to bring in a verdict for the defendant and authorize said trial court to render a judgment against the plaintiff?
If the defendant was never during such time of the filing of the suit and the rendition of the judgment by such foreign court a resident of the state of Oklahoma and was not in said state at any such times, then a fraud was practiced upon the jurisdiction of the district court of Bryan county, Okl., and such judgment was and is void.
The defendant and his witnesses testified as stated above and no witness disputed such evidence upon the question of the defendant's residence. This being true, it is apparent that he was not within the jurisdiction of the Bryan county district court, Okl., at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Davis
...judgment is a collateral attack, and in order for such an attack to be successful the judgment must be void. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Little, Tex. Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 214, writ refused; 26 Tex.Jur. 424. The question then arises whether a judgment based on an unconstitutional statute is void or......
-
Carter v. G & L Tool Co. of Utah, Inc., 14669
...judgment must be void. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398, 168 S.W.2d 216 (1942); W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Lettle, 32 S.W.2d 214 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1930, writ ref'd); 34 Tex.Jur.2d 385. If the court has jurisdiction, a judgment entered by default is as conclusive against......
-
Sidran v. Tanenbaum
...by showing lack of jurisdiction. Mitchell v. San Antonio Public Service Co., Tex.Com.App.1931, 35 S.W.2d 140; W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Little, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 214, wr. ref.; Autry v. Autry, Tex.Civ.App., 350 S.W.2d 233, wr. dism; Cooper v. Newell, 173 U.S. 555, 19 S.Ct. 506, 43 L.Ed. 8......
-
Williams v. State of Wash.
...(1974) (civil penalties). Although a judgment may be collaterally attacked if void as rendered, W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Little, 32 S.W.2d 214 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1930, writ ref'd), we hold that the judgment as rendered is not void due to vagueness. Reading the judgment as a whole reveals t......