Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 140
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
140 YORK V. CARTWRIGHT. [Tyler Term,
Argument for the appellees.
The next question is, does fraud render a judgment void
when the judgment upon its face seems to be regular and
right in all respects. We maintain that it does not. That
such a judgment is voidable only, and that the validity of
such a judgment can be inquired into only in a direct proceeding
instituted for that purpose in the court in which
the judgment was rendered, making the parties to the
original judgment parties to such proceeding, and that
such proceeding must be instituted within a reasonable
time, and that such judgment cannot be attacked in a collateral
proceeding by the parties to such judgment, or
those claiming under the parties to such judgment. That
creditors may attack such a judgment in a collateral proceeding,
we do not doubt. (Weathered v. Mays, 4 Tex.,
389; Chambers v. Lodges, 3 Tex., 528-532; Kitchen v.
Crawford, 13 Tex., 522; Chambers v. Hodges, 23 Tex.,
110; Bowers v. Chaney, 21 Tex., 367, 368, 369; 5 WSall.,
298.) We submit that the above authorities abundantly
support the position we have assumed. We admit that
the courts have frequently, in discussing the subject of
fraud, used the word void when they meant to use the
word voidable, and those upon whom the grave responsibility
of making the laws has devolved have too often used
the word void when they meant to use the word voidable.
The most notable instance of this kind to which we can
now call the attention of the court, is our statute upon the
subject of frauds and fraudulent conveyances. (Pas. Dig.,
We would call the especial attention of this court to the
fact that appellants in their pleadings did not make Henry
W. Sublett or other parties to said judgment parties defendant
to their said suit. We submit that, 1st, the question
of death of Aaron York at date of judgment; 2d,
that question of fraud in procuring said judgment; and 3d,
that the question as to whether the District Court of Henderson
county had jurisdiction on account of notorious
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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 Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/148/: accessed April 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .