McAnear v. Epperson

Citations

• 54 Tex. 220
• 1881 Tex. LEXIS 7

Syllabus

<p>1. Oases distinguished.— This case distinguished from Taylor v. Rowland, 26 Tex., 293, and from Taylor v. Whitehead, 33 Tex., 181.</p> <p>2. Void and voidable — Judgment.—The judgment of a court of general jurisdiction recited an appearance by minor defendants, an adjudication that they were minors, the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and his appearance and defense for them; held, the fact that the minors were not really cited personally, even if sufficient to cause a reversal of the judgment on direct proceedings, furnished no ground for attacking the judgment in a collateral proceeding.</p> <p>3. Cases discussed.— Seguin v. Maverick, 24 Tex., 526, discussed.</p> <p>4. Bill of review.— Proceedings by bill of review under the statute (Pasch. Dig., arts. 4616, 4617, 1488, 1489,1496), or in the nature of a bill of review in chancery, must have been commenced, if instituted by heirs, in any event within two years after the youngest attains his majority.</p> <p>5. Constitutional law.—Art. 12, sec. 43 of the constitution of 1869, which suspended statutes of limitation of civil suits from January 28, 1861, to March 30, 1870, did not apply to- the statute requiring the prosecution of writs of error within two years from the date of the judgment.</p> <p>6. Bill of review — Constitutional law.—Sec. 14, art. 13 of the constitution of 1869 has no application to bills of review.</p>