York v. Cartwright

• Decision Date: 01 January 1874
• Parties: REBECCA YORK ET AL. v. AMANDA CARTWRIGHT ET AL.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

42 Tex. 136

REBECCA YORK ET AL.

v.AMANDA CARTWRIGHT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1874.

APPEAL from Henderson. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Fowler.

This was an action of trespass to try title, brought by Rebecca York, Robert A. York, Milton G. York, and Mary York, against Amanda Cartwright, Americus Cartwright, Leonidas Cartwright, Matthew Cartwright, Anna Roberts, formerly Anna Cartwright, and her husband, Ben. Roberts, Mary Ingram, formerly Mary Cartwright, and her husband, James Ingram, for a league and labor of land in Henderson county, patented to Aaron York, August 7, 1850. The defendants, Anna Roberts and her husband, claimed the land and excepted to the petition, demurring for want of parties, plead limitation and not guilty.

The demurrer was sustained and the cause dismissed. The allegations in the petition are as follows:

“That a patent issued to Aaron York 7th August, 1850, on a certificate granted to York as a citizen of the republic; that at the time of the issuance of the certificate he was the head of a family; had a wife, Ruth York, by whom he had two children, Milton and Robert York, part of the plaintiffs in this case; that his wife, Ruth, died in 1849, and before any disposition had been made of the land; that he married again to Rebecca York, by whom he had a child, Mary, the other plaintiffs; that said Aaron York died in San Augustine county in 1855, never having sold or otherwise disposed of the said land, the same being community property; that the one-half of said land, being the portion to which said Ruth York was entitled, descended to the said Milton and Robert, her children, on the death of their mother, Ruth, and the other half, the said Aaron York's part, on his death, descended to the said Rebecca and Mary, together with said Robert and Milton. No administration was had on the estate of either the said Aaron or Ruth York. That said Aaron York had a permanent, fixed, and notorious residence in the county of San Augustine from 1835 to the time of his death, and never lived out of that county, and never was a non-resident of that county after 1835, and that he was neighbor to the said Henry W. Sublett and the defendants; that the defendants combined and confederated to defraud, cheat, and swindle the said Aaron York by commencing a suit in Henderson county, by publication in the name of Henry W. Sublett, who made an affidavit of the non-residence of the said York; that that was done with the fraudulent intent to give the court of Henderson county jurisdiction of the case; that the county of San Augustine, and that county only, had jurisdiction; that no statement of facts was filed with the papers of the case, as the law requires; that after the commencement of the said suit by publication, and before the judgment was rendered, the said Aaron York died; and that, notwithstanding his death, the said defendants proceeded to take judgment 5th May, 1856, and without any notice the said defendants moved the court to reform the said judgment, and did so, bringing in a new party at the November term, 1856, and by a decree of the court divided the said land between the pretended plaintiffs, Henry W. Sublett and the defendants, except said York.

T. J. Word, for appellants.

The plaintiffs ought to have been permitted to amend. (Teas v. McDonald, 13 Tex., 349, 354.)

The general demurrer admits the facts, and it was error to sustain the demurrer. (Williams v. Warnell, 28 Tex., 610, 612.)

A judgment rendered by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity. (Withers v. Patterson, 27 Tex. 491-493, 495-497.)

As to bringing suit by publication. (Sydnor v. Roberts, 13 Tex., 598, 619, 620.)

Reagan & Greenwood, for appellees.

This was an action of trespass to try title to one league and labor of land, instituted by the appellants in the District Court of Henderson county against the appellees. The appellants claim to be the surviving wife and legal heirs to Aaron York, to whom the land in controversy was patented by the State of Texas. The appellants, in their action of trespass to try title, sought to inquire into the validity of a judgment in the District Court of Henderson county, rendered at the April term, 1856, in favor of Henry W. Sublett and others v. Aaron York, by which judgment all the right and title of Aaron York to the land in controversy was divested and fully invested in the said Henry W. Sublett and others. The appellants sought to avoid said judgment in their said action of trespass to try title upon three distinct grounds: 1st. That at the date of said judgment Aaron York was dead; 2d. That said judgment was fraudulently procured, and therefore void; 3d. That said judgment was void because it was rendered in the District Court of Henderson county when Aaron York was then notoriously residing in San Augustine county.

The appellees excepted to the legal sufficiency of the pleadings of appellants to investigate in this action the question of the validity of said judgment after so great a lapse of time.

The district judge, after hearing the said exceptions, sustained the exceptions, and appellants failing to ask leave to amend their pleadings, the cause was dismissed at the cost of appellants, from which judgment dismissing their suit the appellants have appealed to this court; and the question here for decision is, whether the court below erred in sustaining the exceptions of appellees.

This court has repeatedly held that the death of plaintiff or defendant to a judgment at the date of judgment does not render such judgment void, but voidable only, and that the validity of such a judgment cannot be inquired into in a collateral proceeding. (Weaver v. Shaw, 5 Tex., 286;Mills v. Alexander, 21 Tex., 154;Thouvenin v. Rodrigues, 24 Tex., 468.)

The next...