Case Information

*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Eon. Tom A. Crarsn

Countr Auditor

flohnnan County

Waoo, Taxar

Dou Sir8

of October S, thl8 depw! tmsnt to you iron Eon.

nnan County, Taaa, part, a8 roii0~8t 8bstraot 16 roe- rhloh the mm ot onlq one d&and-t %r ahown, whloh 18 the only dofondant &ulgment wa1 CbooTer- 8hould thlr Judgment bo lndrxod l d againat. galnrt all in the Nit, thr.8 of the defondmtr, or the on8 dofondant only in the reoorerl 08u8WO . Hon. Tom A. Craven, 8 JM@

. . m. 8peOia8n l b8traOt Of jud@mont l noloaod with TO'out letter rcad8, la part, a8 r0ii0rn8

"1, Ilofi Hitoh811, Clark of th8 County Court of YoLonnu~ County, ToXa8, do hereby oor- tlm in a oertaln ruit pondlly In aald that oourt, wherein Soha Doe plalntlfr, and John #mith, T.J. Logo 8nd BirdI. Wll80n &ra d8fmd- ants, Ho. 41Bl. The 8aid plaintiff, toha Do., reoorcred Judgment l gainrt 8aid drfandant, John Smith + l + l

Judgment lien8 l r8 oreated purely by t&a &at- Ute8 oi thi8 rtate and the am0 taking ot a jud&ment by .A* l galnrrt l Ba dld not oroat a 11811 at law. oom.aon rREQuH OR JtlXLmTS, Sth Edition, Vol. 8, pg 19B7. A8 a reault, ststutar must, ba 8triOtly tollowad and by their term8 a lfen dOa not 8ri88 until the lud@n8nt 18 properly abstrooted and lndaxad. t9 TEX. JUR. p. 558. the naturo or Tar a proper underetandlng of judgment lien8 and th8ir oreation w8 8et rorth In full i &tiOl88 5441 and SUS of the Rev red Citil StCItUt88 Ot Texar, 19esr 'Arti !MM.- Ibatraotr of fudgmantr. Baoh olerk of a oourt, when the per8qn in rho80 taTOr a judgment -8 rendOr8d, hi8 a&sat, l saigloe, l p Flie8 thsretor, 8hal.l attornry out, oertiw under hi8 hand and Otfioa Mb 8.a. dollrer to 8uoh pplioMt upon pm-t 0r rem allowed by liar, an l b8traOt or ruoh JUd@lG& 8hOWinB:

1. The name8 oi th8 plaintlti and of the dafendant in 8uOh judgnmt.

2. The number OS the 8uit in whlah the -~8 r8ndered. jUd@aOnt

3. The date whrn 8uoh Judgment wa8 randared. 4. Th8 amo*lnt rhloh th8 judgment war rendered 8nd tha balanoe due ther8on. *3 .

Hon. Ton A. Craven, page b

6. Et!trat. Of inter.8t 8JSOiriOd ill th8 lUd& "Eaoh just1.e Of the p.aO. 8hall al80 mmk. and deliver an abrrtraot of any jud&nent rendered la hlr oourt In the mm83 herein prorlded, oer- tlfled under hi8 hand..

‘Artlol. s440.- Reoordlng judgmenta. Bach oounty clerk rball keep a well bound book oalled the *JudgmentReoord,* and he 8hall immediate1 tile and thrrein reoord all ropm- 1~ aathent I oated abstraot8 of judgment R w en presented to him for reoord, noting therein the day and hour of auoh reoord. Be shall at the sbme tim enter it upcn the alphabetloal index suoh judgment record, ahowlng the nanm of eaoh plaintlif and oi each defendant in the judgment, and the number of pwo of the book upon whloh the abstraot is reoorded. a8 8hall leave a 8pC. at the r00t.0r 88Oh 8uoh abatraot entry 0s oredit suoh judgment, and rhall enter the Pame when and 8atirfaotlon 0s proparly ah~wn.~ in CITIZENS STATE BANK OF CLfiRIENDA, A8 8tated

IOXA f8. DEL-TXX IiJVE.?lWNT CO. (Cl+. App.) lZ?i S.W. (a) 450:

'The objeot Of the rtatutor~ prooeedlng for abstraot of judgment reoordrtlon thereof ia put rubsequent pUFOh.8aZ8 or enoumbrano8sabf to properw aought to be oharged on notloo of the lien thereby or8at.d”.

ha stated in BURNETT ~8~ COCKSHAlT, ET AL, tl S.W. 950, B CGA so4: “Wiil. the ind8xb 18 aad 8t.p . n.O.88ur

ti ths oreatlon of lien, and whllo a aub- 8tantlal oomplianoe with the 8tatutory direotlon o.nnot be dirFbn8.d with by the OOUXt8, then 18 no re80on why the purpo.8 0s thore requlre- Hon. Tom A. Craven, page 4

nam+~~+~~~~~~~r~~~~hora~ nex w-8 ats'z'ii6r'fiinTIiill~ u the law the purpose 18 8ub88tr.d the provider, 8hould not bo oon8trued 80 teohnioal- rtatut.8 17 a8 imp088 unueoe8aary diffiOultib8 upon jud@.nt oredltor 8..kin~ to 8bOur. 118X&8 on the property of hi8 4ebtor.* (Undor8oorin(r OUT8.1 see alw BRADLEY vs. JANJSlW;93 3.U. 506 at page SO8.

Artlole 5448, Retlsed Clrll iZatut.8, supra,

provide8 that the Clerk shall *'enter It upon the alpha- bet1081 Index to suoh judgment reoord, showin& th8 nam or eaoh glalntiff and of eaoh def - endant In the juag- -- -- ._- _- -m- raont l l l ” (unacrsoorlng OI3r8.)

We are main17 conocrnad wlth a proper oonetruo- tion 0r th18 portion of Art1018 5UR, in answering your question, and we notice at the outset that the 8tOtUt.8 (Artlol.8 5447 and 5418) them8blv.8 both provide In haeo rerbae that the namer 0s eaoh FlaiAtifr and eG6 W in the judment must be indexed and not the names tendant 0r eaoh 38mirr and 8aOh defendant in the 8ult.

From the euthoritiei in thi8 rtate it 18 quita olear that an abstraot of judgment 18 not admlsslble In erldenoe to ahow a lien olalmed under it, ~1188s the proper indexing 0r the abstraot arrirnatirely app8arr.

CORBETT v. RXW OD, (Clr. Ap .) S8 S.N. SSO; mxTEAKx? f. HILL (CIT. App. 179 S.W. 5s9; P LEONARD v. BU?CRD LBR. CO. (Cir. Rpp.) 181 S.V. 797.

ad we knor al8o thr,t the ~2’0r1810n Ot hrtiol. S448 rb- qulring the olerk to eater upon the alphabetloal Index the naam of r;oh plalntlff and of eaoh defendant ha8 been held mandatoq.

~ARAXTT ZPATZ BASK f. XARIOH CC;Wl'T NATICCAL BARK (Civ. App.) 293 3.1. 2181 BAliTON V. PARXS, (Cir. App.) 127 3.1. (26) s76.

Hon. Tom A. Craven, pagr 5

OULLEXTQIN CO. 18. OLIVER, RI AL, 78 Texan 186 14 3.X. 4S1, 18 a 18adln8 0888 in thfr rtate In whloh the Supreme Court of TeX88 h.8 hmad.4 down it8 0s the statute8 go+ernlng judgment 11~~58. lnterpretatlon In th8t oaae jud nt had been rendered agalnet the ln- dlTldu818 Ooolpo8 ng the partnerahlp Of Mltohell and Y

soruggr . The abotr8ot wa8 indexed only under thr letter %. under the partn8r8hiQ name and th. oourt held thl8 to b8 ~8urrioiaat, rayingr

nphe language Of the .t.tUtb IS Olear, and it8 FUrpOt Obf1OuI. Th8 1od8x to 8uoh judge aent reoord shall be lphabetloal, aad rhall show the name of eaoh pl8lnti~f and Of eaoh de- fendant In the judgment, number of the paga In the bi-ok upon aHoh the abatraot Is reoorded. Revised Clril 2tatutt8, Artlola 3158.

Thir mean8 that ecoh name must appear in the index in it8 alphabetioal order. The evident objeot le that pereon searohlng raoord8, In order to di.OOT8r the .rl~t.ac. 0r judgment 11058, ma7 hare the peons 0s asoertalnlry whether mob lion8 exist or not, with pro:.pt- no88 and certainty. In t:ils oase a third per- aon, dealing with 3orugg8, who had no knowledge of the FlUtiOUhT judgiaent, would hat. been oompelled to exaaine th8 entire In ordar reoord to hare asosrtalned that the abdtraot had been reoorded. It 1s evident, we think, that ln thlr partloular the 8tatute ha8 not been oom- in rubetano... plied with, either llterall7 On the other hand, la GLAdSCGCQ[ 18. PIRCE, 9R Tax. RIl, 47 S.F. 965, rsodlfylng 4S 8.W. 415, the oaae W.8 diNi888d as to one member Of the pmtner8hlQ On 80- OfXnt of non-serrloe, and it me held that slnoe the

ant did not arreot the diaIPis8.d partymFa8 raiiindifidual, hi8 aam. wa8 propulr wr- omitted rrom the Index.

In Y9OMTRLIR~. COODT (CO~U. App.) 59 9-W. (Rd) 819, air. (CIT. A;Q.) 39 8.n'. (I?d) 8sS, Char. R. COOlEb.8 had raoorared a jumant in the d18triot oourt OS Jonsa

Counq aganst 0.~. coody ror debt, and a881nst said *6 CooUf and 0110 U-8. J.T. Qoorgr for foreolosuro of a vendor*8 lien. No personal Judgment wa8 rendered in raror or Coomber against th8 defendant, Mr. J.T. Oaorge, but Lirs. Oeorge reoorered judgment agalnat her oo-de- isndant, O.R. Goody, by reason of his oroaa aotioa against her, and the orrioerr or the oourt recovered Judgment against the reapeotlre parties ror oosts in- ourred by them.

We believe the raota In your h~thetloal oase are analogous to those presented in the YoOlothlln oaao and sole question before the oourt there was whether or not the property of Ccody was charged with the judg- ment lien by reason or the iallure to index the abetmot oi Judeent alphabetloally lc the lname or L:rs. Oeoree.

The Court held Wet IIO Judgxzent lien was oreat- 06 and speaking through Shcrt, J., prl siding Judge of.

Seotion B of’ the Co~isslon of Appeals, said:

Tlowerer, the articles lnrolrsd here are b449 and 5446, and it a:penrs that according to prorlslona or Article 5449 the olerk of a oourt, upon an aFrllc?tlon having been made, shall nake out, cert.lQ, and deliver to the ap- plioant an abstraot or Judgment shoring fire things, the flr8t of w%lOh 18 that dlrrereat the abstraot shallTo= zs EeTla- Tii43Zrsn +r ‘fTTrs not~nZiG FOX antr,FiT~~~-~~,

Ifthsre serersl.w4hnnamerntm

nJd&UU, ii. &has k~ ansaL mm rh japea After tbir’has been 4hafQaQfm- done, and this instrument hsn been handed to olork, wuhere lt is soaght to oreatm a lien, then, aooordlng Artlole 5448, mm

u m &,U rrotxrU etloated abstract& cuired Ln sr&z U arm 4hp gbpbbbet~oal &&a 3Qnvnp--,m*Ba* olUtiprWntb

ilk&l.2 and the number of the gape in the bi;ok upon whioh the abstraot is recorded. In other

Hon. Tom A. Cratsn, page 9

word8, Judgment lien glron by plaintirr in a judgment is purr4 a statutom one, and a person who asserts that ho hns suoh a lien must show that eaoh and l req requirement or the statute has been followed in order that he shall establish the existence or suoh Ilen.* (Under- soorlng ours). Lrr SiIRkT VS. TRUST C ‘Y.: Alrr GT TEXAS, ET AI.

(CCA 19S4) 69 S.U. (2d) 835, writ reruaed, ths bstraot or judgment Fepared by the oounty olerk was indexsd only in the nasies or the plalotirrs and defendants ap- petrlag in the abvtraot and was not isdexsd ln the mum of eaoh derendant apyearlng in the Judgmant. Them vas no personal reoc;rery debt by the Flalntifi against the defendants whose names were omitted from the ab- straot, but Judgmmt did deorcs a recovery br plaia- tlrts or all the costs or the case against oae or the defendants not naLled In the abotraot: an& likewise t.?other detendant whose name did not sppear in the abstraot vts deorsed s raoovcry of all oosts inourred by him against tha plaiotirr

The oourt quoted with aprrorel the language above quoted ln LfoOlothlln VS. Ctody, suprs, and held that the abstract and Index did not crette a valid judg- Sea, also, in acoord SZIREY ii% AL fs. TRr ,T sent Ilon. CGxi~AKt OF TEXAS (CCA 193b) 98 5.8. (2df 24s.

In BARTON vs. PARXS, 127 Y.U. (Ed) 37b (CCA 1939) a Judgment had been rendered In favor of Lmlso L. Parks against Y. H. IEaddox, John J. Burke, Cerl TZ. Barker, and saoh 0r thsaa ror (10,S40.00, with 10% interest and oost or court, and ror a ioreolosure liens against certain propetlss against all of suoh defendants and the defend- ant John Bredanus. Ilo personal Judgment vas rendare against Bredamus.

The name or John Bradems was omitted rrcm the sbstraot of judgment filed and his name was net entered upon ths alphabetloal lnder to such Judgment reoord 88 reoulred br law. The eourt quoted with aptroral ths otae or malothlln ~6. Ocody, supra, Shlrey vs. Trust Com- and held that the abstraot and supra, pany ot Texas, .z Hon. Tom A. Craven page 0

index did not oreate a ralld judgment sgalnst the prop- arty of la. H. Kaddox for the solo reason that the ab- stract and Index Omitted the name of John Bredems.

In OUAMNTY STAT2 BANK GP DONNA vs. EAFlIC2-J cOt!x- TY RATIONAL BANK (CCA 1927) 293 3.W. 248, the abstraot or Judgment vau alphabstloall~ indexed in the name or each deiendant against whom Judgment was taken, but was not alphsbetloall~ Indexed In the name0 f aaJ plaintlit.

Thr oourt aald:

*The statute (Art. 5446) prOvidea that the olerk shall reoord all abstracts or Judgment illed in his oftloa ior that mrwzm. and ahall alao at the same time enter thekb~~~act *; the alphabetical index to suoh Judment rej h n e r etoh plalntffi-and or Faog’ ffi$nbkj%e judgment and t e number o”?e Z e h ~“~e~~n,ae~~~?hi~~~~~:~t kdr!; ooastr& to man that the names of eao& the $&p -eETb~dXnZ??-aiX XZZn #= ant _ -- must appear inthe lad& In alphabetloal order.

GIN coxi$NY vs . CLIVZR, 96 TRXAS 162. 14 3.X.

451. The trial court having round that the Judgment *was not l lphabstloall~ Indexed In the 11-6 ot any plaIntirr*, the statutory requlre- ment was not met, the registration was ratally 49r40tire and the Judgment lien was not ffeot- uatsa .a Undsrsoorillg ours). i

In 5A.R ARTONLO LOAN I TRUST CCEPAHY VS. 3kVIS, (CCA 1921) two defendants names vere omitted 236 5. U. b13 from the abstract and Index, although no money Judg- ment was reoovered a lisn was roreolosed against them and the oourt held thet the abstract and index were Insurtlolent to oreate a lien.

Xe take notloa oi oaees oi VGN STEIN VS. TRSLLR, 23 .3. W. 1049 (CCA 1693) and BLUK m AL Vs. KiZYySSR (COA leQ4). 26 3. F. bbl, whloh rollows thb Trexler oars and awns to be authority ior proposltlon that a sub- stantial oompllanoe with the statutes Is sufrlolent and . ^[4]

Hon. Tom A Craven, page 9

that an abatraot that Is oorrcotlr indexed 1 n respeot ot one of several derendonts creates a lien agtlust & property.

Vie believe that this line of oeses in so far as the point here l-mlved is cononrned wus render’ed obsolete by the oourt in YoOlothlIn vs. C5od7, supra, when it said:

The opinion of the oose of Blum ~(1. Keyser, supra, is In partial ocnfliot with the opinion in this ease, tnd to the extent that It 1s in oonrllot it should be overruled. In that OOBO the oourt held that it WCS not nsoessary to plaoe the nme on the indirect lndox. To that extent +h’e thin;: the opIr.1~~ of the court in that oa3e Is erroneous.*

The statutes provide tCfit t&e names ci e:kob plelr~tlft and of c~.ch defendant 13 the JuQment shall be Indexed, and not the names of eaoh I:laIntlff and of e-:ch defendant in the suit, and these n-es must be 1rAexed properly oreate a lien.

NYK, iiT AL vs. ZCiDY, 70 Taxes 434, e S.0;‘. 606; N=, 2,T AL ~8. CT,lBBLb 70 TCX(LS 458, e 3.\y. 60f; LioDANIEL. ET AL vs. KILN%. (CCA 19291 19 3.X.

(24) 42s; aft. 3 preno Co&t-36 3.w. i24) 992, 120. Texas 160;

CCfXK VS. CGNCULST, (Clr. App.) 2 S.W. (2d) 992, ~pp.1 13 s.w. (24) 346;

l r r. (c ot1 141.

3ECbiITY WTIOML BICJX OF WIC!iiTA FALLS Vi.

ALLiBd (CIT. A~p.1 261 S.7?. 1059.

We believe that the yrrbpar test for the County Clerk to app17 In all crises is, the names of the pleln- tiffa and the 4etecdGnts appeorlng cn the rtce or the

Ii a rarty is whown as a plalntIrf or t de- the _ Judgm ent “1s name should be lndoxed. Th’e

#%%%n take it that Rich abetraot oi Judgment iorm submlt- ted the on17 derenatnt acpearlng upon the race or ths judgment was JO% Szlth. In such ease, oalp tho nems or John Doe, ~ltlntlff, and John Smith, defendant need be Indexed AD reoulred by Artlole 54M, RsElsed Ci~ll *10 . . P Hon. Tom A. Clark, page 10 b!oClothlln va. COOQ, wqra.

satuter,

Con8oquontl~, r0U are rerpeotSul1~ drlrad and it 18 the opinion of tbie department thst under Artlcl8 5448, Rerlred Clrll Ytatute8, the Count7 Clerk of Mo- L~IWAO COUnt7, 8hOuld elltibr upon the elphabetIOa1 Index to hi8 judgmsllt reoord the nime of l aoh plaintiif and caoh Urfendant appafulng upon iaoe of a Judgmnt, in order efiectuata a judgment Urn.

YOreOter, it IS the OpiniOn Of thie department that it 1s duty of the count7 olerk to enter In al- phabetical or&w the nam of eeoh plaIntlit and of caoh defendant appearing upon the face of a judgment (in order to create e Judgment lien) althougb no Fersonal judgment for debt has been rendered againat ouoh plaintiff or de- rendant (a judgmmt in rem for foroolosure being miff- cirnt); even thoiiijhmc or117 Judgment rendered aplalnat any party to the juament 18 torts.

Yours very truly JDS/ob

APPROVE3CCT 23, 1939

4zLzhf2.G

ATTOFUiEY GEHERAL OF TXXiY.3