249 S.W. 1088 | Tex. App. | 1923
This is an action instituted by appellant against appellee to set aside a decree of divorce between him and appellant rendered on October 7, 1920. The grounds for the attack on the judgment were that it was falsely alleged in the petition, in that suit, that appellant had abandoned appellee, and the divorce was procured on false testimony; that the judgment of divorce was void because the petition did not allege that appellee was an actual bona fide inhabitant of the state of Texas for twelve months prior to filing the suit and a resident citizen of Bexar county for six months; and that appellant was not served with citation in the cause. The court heard the evidence and rendered judgment that appellant take nothing by her suit, and also that appellee take nothing by his cross-bill for a divorce.
No pleadings from the original suit were introduced in evidence except the original petition, and there was no allegation or proof that the petition was the only pleading filed in such suit. The allegation in the petition as to residence was:
"That plaintiff is a bona fide inhabitant of the state of Texas and has resided in Bexar county, in said state, for more than six months next preceding the filing of the suit."
This was not a sufficient allegation as to twelve months' residence in the state as required by statute. Gallagher v. Gallagher (Tex. Civ. App.)
The general rule is that the law will presume that a domestic court of general jurisdiction had power to make the judgment rendered by it until the contrary is shown by the record. Martin v. Robinson,
The judgment was one of which the court had jurisdiction, there was no allegation that no pleadings were filed by the plaintiff in the case except the original petition, and the proof did not show that no other pleadings were filed in the case. The burden of proof was upon appellant when she sought to destroy the judgment, and she should have shown facts which would have destroyed the presumption in favor of the validity of the judgment.
"The jurisdiction of a court means the power or authority which is conferred upon a court, by the Constitution and laws, to hear and determine causes between parties, and to carry its judgments into effect. It is a plain proposition, that a court has no power to do anything which is not authorized by law. * * * Whatever the statute authorizes the court to do, it may rightfully do." Withers v. Patterson,
Appellant was properly cited.
The judgment is affirmed. *1090