Hill v. Woodward

Citations

• 78 Va. 765
• 1884 Va. LEXIS 50

Syllabus

<p>1. Judgments and Decrees—Conclusiveness.—The doctrine that the unreversed judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive, and cannot be collaterally attacked, is well established. Wimbish v. Breeden, 77 Va. 324.</p> <p>2. Idem—Presumptions— However assailed, unless want of authority plainly appears on face of record, every presumption exists in favor of judgments of courts of general jurisdiction, and entire record will be inspected.</p> <p>3. Idem—Want of notice.—Same rule prevails where defendant alleges want of summons or notice, and onus of showing want of notice is on the impeacher. Mere failure of record to state affirmatively that notice was given, is insufficient for the impeachment.</p> <p>4. Idem—Idem—Case at bar.—Suit in circuit court of N K county to subject decedent’s estate to his debts, and assign or commute dower. Widow’s name appears not in summons returned executed October 7th, 1878. Bill filed January rules, 1879, contains her name as one of the defendants ; and decree entered May 31st, 1879, brings cause on to be heard on bill taken for confessed as to all the defendants'; account of debts and dower taken, reported and confirmed. Cause removed to circuit court of K W county. Land sold free of dower. Widow present at sale and bid. Sale confirmed. In 1881 she filed petition alleging she had never been properly made party to the suit, and asked that it be begun de novo. Petition dismissed. On appeal—■</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>1. Proper presumptions favor the jurisdiction of the court and the validity of its proceedings.</p> <p>2. Between issuance of first summons and filing of bill separate writ was probably issued and served on widow and returned, though that fact appears not in the record here.</p> <p>3. Her petition was, under the circumstances, properly dismissed.</p>