Boggess v. Howard

Citations

• 40 Tex. 153

Syllabus

<p>1. After an order dismissing the writ of error, plaintiff was allowed until the next term to file a new error bond.</p> <p>3. A judgment rendered in a justice’s court on March 5,1859, on which executions had been regularly issued until October 37, 1859, and upon which, on the twenty-sixth of January, 1869, plums execution was issued, was not dormant at the issuance of. the last execution; the act of February 14, 1860, protecting the judgment until the repeal of that act on November 3, 1866; the stay law enacted by the Eleventh Legislature dispensing with acts of diligence until that law was adjudged unconstitutional on the twenty-fourth of February, 1868; and the execution having issued within one year after the stay law was declared invalid.</p> <p>3. While an execution sale made under a dormant judgment may be avoided by the defendant in execution, a stranger cannot object to such execution, or to the title of the purchaser at such sale, in a collateral proceeding.</p> <p>4. Where a party in a collateral action claims under a sheriff’s deed, the court cannot look into irregularities of the process or proceedings of the sheriff.</p> <p>5. This rule is, if not identical with a corollary from the elementary principle, that acts done under an erroneous judgment are valid and binding until they are reversed; and in this there is no practical difference where the matter is sought to be brought collaterally in -question, whether the right claimed under it is made by a party or a stranger.</p> <p>6. Johnson v. Shaw, 88 Texas, 585, limited.</p>