Texas Attorney General Opinion: V-902 Page: 3 of 7
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon; W. O. Shafer, Page 3 -(V-902)
These purchasers occupy no such favored position, for
they had no interest in the subject matter at the timeof the rendi-
tion of the judgments here involved, and are no way affected by the
The general rule is well stated in 34 Corpus Jaris 344,
Judgments, Sec. 558, in the following language:
"The general rule is that an 'application to epen a
judgment or decree for irregularity can be made only-
by a party to the record who has been in some way prej-
udicially affected by such judgment or decree, and that
a stranger to the record who was neither a party nor a
privy tO the action cannot make such an application. i
it appears that the parties really in interest are con-
tent that the judgment shall stand and submit to the ir-
regularities affecting its validity, it should net be set
aside at the instance of a stranger, .... This rule is,
however, subject to the limitation that a person not a
party:may apply for the opening or vacation of the judg-
ment where his rights are injuriously affected thereby.
Buta person whose interest was acquired after judg-
tnetit cannot have the judgrrient vacated tr Irregulati
ties of which the parties do not complain.
In a comparatively recent case, Standard Oil Co. v. State,
132 S.W.Zd 612 (Tex. Civ. App. 1939, error dsism., judgm,. cor.), it
"It cannot be doubted that the trial court has juris-
diction over its own judgments until they become final,
with power to vacate, correct or amend same at the in-
stance of proper parties upon grounds sufficient to aun-
thorize such action by the court. 25 Tex. Jur., Sec. 127,
p. 520; id. Sec; 150, p, 545. It is also a well settled gen-
eral rule that only parties to the judgment can have it
set aside, or its terms Changed. 25 Tex, Jur., Sec. 172,
p. 568; 34 C.J., Sec. 558, p. 344. There are, however,
exceptions to this general rule. Where the rights of one
not a party to the judgment are directly and necessarily
affected he may intervene after judgment and have his
rights protected. Moser v. Hussey, 67 Tex. 456, 3 S.W.
688; Dallas Oil & Ref. Co. v. Portwood, Tex. Civ. ApL ,
68 S.W. 1017. Such instance is presented in a trespass
to try title suit against a tenant to which the landlord
is not made a party. In such case the landlord is a prop-
er if not a necessary party to the suit. In such case the
interest of the intervener antedates the judgment and is
directly in the subject matter of suittbteen the parties
Here’s what’s next.
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: V-902, text, 1949; (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth265721/m1/3/: accessed August 18, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.