Williams v. Hays

• Citation: 13 S.W. 1029
• Parties: WILLIAMS <I>v.</I> HAYS.
• Decision Date: 13 May 1890
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

13 S.W. 1029

WILLIAMS

v. HAYS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 13, 1890.

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Lamar county.

This suit was brought by the appellant, Mrs. Annie Williams, a widow, against appellee, in form of trespass to try title and for damages. Plea of not guilty filed by defendant. The judgment was for defendant, and plaintiff appealed. The court filed conclusions of law and fact. There is no statement of facts. The court's findings are as follows: He says: "(1) I find that on the 2d day of May, 1882, [the day of the alleged trespass,] the plaintiff, Annie Williams, was the owner in fee-simple of the land in controversy. (2) I find that on February 21, 1881, a suit was instituted in justice's of the peace court, precinct No. 7, of Lamar county, Tex., in the name of John W. Williams and Annie Williams, the plaintiff herein, as plaintiff, against one Thomas N. Moore as defendant, on an account for $128, for which judgment was rendered for plaintiff against defendant on the 4th June, 1881, and all costs of suit, and against each party for the costs incurred by them, and that in same case David Allen and D. Maury were summoned as garnishees, the case against them docketed separately, and that thereafter, on the 3d day of September, 1881, judgment was rendered in each of said garnishment cases dismissing the same by order of plaintiff's attorneys, and rendering judgment against the plaintiff in each of said cases for all the costs therein. (3) I find that each of said suits, and all proceedings therein, notwithstanding they all recite that plaintiff appeared, were in fact without the knowledge of plaintiff, Annie Williams, and without authority from her, or any legally authorized agent of hers. (4) I find that on the 3d day of March, 1882, executions were regularly issued on each of said judgments for costs therein, and after regular levies and notices the land in controversy was sold thereunder for a valuable consideration, and defendant claims by regular chain of transfers under this sale. (5) I conclude and find that said judgments and sale thereunder cannot be collaterally attacked in this suit, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment herein for the land in controversy, and all costs." The errors assigned are that the court erred in his conclusion of law in not rendering judgment for the plaintiff, and in holding that the judgment was binding upon Mrs. Williams, she having been made a party by fraud, and without her knowledge or consent, and holding that the judgment could not be collaterally attacked by her.

D. K. Forshee, for appellant. Hale & Hale, for appellee.

COLLARD, J., (after stating the facts as above.)

The law, as it has been announced in numerous decisions in this state, is against the claim set up by appellant. It is settled that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be collaterally impeached unless the record affirmatively shows the want of jurisdiction. Even where a part of the record, the citation and its return, show that service could not have been had, the judgment of a justice of the peace reciting that the defendant wholly made default, and that he "was duly served with process," was held not impeached. The judgment being the final act of the court, its judicial finding imported absolute verity. Evidence of fraud aliunde the record cannot be heard to dispute the judgment even where the fraud is in obtaining jurisdiction. The following are some of the cases decided in this state holding the foregoing doctrines: Murchison v. White, 54 Tex. 78; Fleming v. Seeligson, 57 Tex. 524; Odle v. Frost, 59 Tex. 684; Watkins v. Davis, 61 Tex. 414; Mikeska v. Blum, 63 Tex. 44; Treadway v....