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
or to you iron Eon.
nnan County, Taaa,
part, a8 roii0~8t
rhloh the 8bstraot 16 roe-
the mm ot onlq one d&and-t %r ahown, whloh
18 the only dofondant the &ulgment wa1 CbooTer-
ld againat. 8hould thlr Judgment bo lndrxod
lgalnrt all thr.8 of the defondmtr, in the Nit,
or the on8 dofondant only in the reoorerl 08u8WO
. .
Hon. Tom A. Craven, JM@ 8
..
m. 8peOia8n lb8traOt Of jud@mont lnoloaod
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 that in a oertaln ruit pondlly In aald
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 lg a inr t drfandant,
8aid
John Smith + l + l
Judgment lien8 lr8 oreated purely by t&a &at-
Ute8 oi thi8 rtate and the am0 taking ot a jud&mentby
.A* lgalnrrtlBa dld not oroat a 11811 at oom.aon law.
rREQuH OR JtlXLmTS, Sth Edition, Vol. 8, pg 19B7. A8
a reault, the 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.
Tar a proper underetandlng of the naturo or
judgment lien8 and th8ir oreation w8 8et rorth In full
&tiOl88 5441 and SUS of the Revired 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,
attornry or lsaigloe, lp F lie8
thsretor, 8hal.l
Mb out, oertiw under hi8 hand and Otfioa 8.a.
and dollrerto 8uoh lpplioMt upon the pm-t
0r the rem allowed by liar,a nlb8traOt 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
jUd@aOnt -~8 r8ndered.
3. The date whrn 8uoh Judgment wa8 randared.
4. Th8 amo*lnt for rhloh th8 judgment war
rendered 8nd tha balanoe due ther8on.
.
Hon. Ton A. Craven, page b
6. Et!trat. Of inter.8t 8JSOiriOd illth8 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~ aathentIoated abstraot8 of judgment wRen
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
to suoh judgment record, ahowlng the nanm of
eaoh plaintlif and oi each defendant in the
judgment, and the number of the pwo of the book
upon whloh the abstraot is reoorded. a8 8hall
leave a 8pC. at the r00t.0r 88Oh 8uoh abatraot
for the entry 0s oredit and 8atirfaotlon0s
suoh judgment, and rhall enter the Pame when
proparly ah~wn.~
A8 8tated in CITIZENS STATE BANK OF CLfiRIENDA,
IOXA f8. DEL-TXX IiJVE.?lWNTCO. (Cl+. App.) lZ?iS.W. (a)
450:
'The objeot Of the rtatutor~ prooeedlng for
abstraot of judgment and reoordrtlon thereof ia
to put rubsequent pUFOh.8aZ8 or enoumbrano8sabf
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 . n.O.88ur 8t.p
ti ths oreatlon of the 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
provider, the purpose 18 8ub88tr.d and the
rtatut.8 8hould not bo oon8trued 80 teohnioal-
17 a8 to imp088 unueoe8aary diffiOultib8 upon
the 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 *'enterIt upon the alpha-
bet1081 Index to suoh judgment reoord, showin& th8 nam
or
-- eaoh glalntiff and of
._-_- -m- eaoh def
- endant In the juag-
--
raontl 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.85447 and 5418) them8blv.8 both provide In haeo
rerbae that the namer 0s eaoh FlaiAtifr and or eG6 W
tendant in the judment must be indexed and not the names
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.P 179 S.W. 5s9;
LEONARD v. BU?CRD LBR. CO. (Cir. Rpp.) 181
S.V. 797.
ad we knor al8o thr,tthe ~2’0r1810n Ot hrtiol. S448 rb-
qulring the olerk to eater upon the alphabetloal Index
the naam of lr;ohplalntlff and of eaoh defendant ha8
been held mandatoq.
~ARAXTT ZPATZ BASK f. XARIOH CC;Wl'TNATICCAL
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
lnterpretatlon 0s the statute8 go+ernlng judgment 11~~58.
In th8t oaae jud nt had been rendered agalnet the ln-
dlTldu818 Ooolpo8 Yng the partnerahlp Of Mltohell and
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 l lphabetloal, aad rhall
show the name of eaoh pl8lnti~f and Of eaoh de-
fendant In the judgment, and the 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 for 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:ilsoase a third per-
aon, dealing with 3orugg8, who had no knowledge
of the FlUtiOUhT judgiaent, would hat. been
oompelled to exaaine th8 entire reoord In ordar
to hare asosrtalned that the abdtraot had been
reoorded. It 1s evident, we think, that ln
thlr partloular the 8tatute ha8 not been oom-
plied with, either llterall7 or in rubetano...
On the other hand, la GLAdSCGCQ[18. PIRCE, 9R
Tax. RIl, 47 S.F. 965, rsodlfylng4S 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.dpartymFa8
wr- raiiindifidual, hi8 aam. wa8 propulr
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
CooUf and 0110U-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
Judgmentagainst 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 the 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 lnameor L:rs. Oeoree.
The Court held Wet IIOJudgxzentlien was oreat-
06 and speaking through Shcrt, J., prlsiding 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 the 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
dlrrereat things, the flr8t of w%lOh 18 that
the abstraot shallTo= zs EeTla-
‘fTTrsand not~nZiG FOX +r
Tii43Zrsn
antr,FiT~~~-~~,
Ifthsre serersl.w4hnnamerntm
nJd&UU, ii.&has k~ ansaL mm rh japea
4hafQaQfm- After tbir’has been
done, and this instrument hsn been handed to
the olork, wuherelt is soaght to oreatm a lien,
then, aooordlng to 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, the 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 a ndlreq 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 lbstraot
or judgment Fepared by the oounty olerk was indexsd
only in the nasiesor the plalotirrsand 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;reryfor debt by the Flalntifi against
the defendants whose names were omitted from the ab-
straot, but the 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 LfoOlothllnVS. Ctody, suprs, and held
that the abstract and Index did not crette a valid judg-
sent Ilon. Sea, also, in acoord SZIREY ii%AL fs. TRr ,T
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 thsaaror (10,S40.00, with 10% interest and oost or
court, and ror a ioreolosure or liens against certain
propetlss against all of suoh defendants and the defend-
ant John Bredanus. Ilopersonal Judgment vas rendare
against Bredamus.
The nameor 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, and Shlrey vs. Trust Com-
pany ot Texas, supra, and held that the abstraot and
. .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&
--to the $&p-eETb~dXnZ??-aiX XZZn #=ant _
must appearinthe lad& In alphabetloal order.
GIN coxi$NY vs . CLIVZR, 96 TRXAS 162. 14 3.X.
451. The trial court having round that the
Judgment *was no t llphabstloall~ 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 lffeot-
uatsa .a iUndsrsoorillg ours).
In 5A.RARTONLO LOAN I TRUST CCEPAHY VS. 3kVIS,
236 5. U. b13 (CCA 1921) two defendants names vere omitted
from the abstract and Index, and 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 the 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 the proposltlon that a sub-
stantial oompllanoewith the statutes Is sufrlolent and
. . 4
Hon. Tom A Craven, page 9
that an abatraot that Is oorrcotlr indexed 1n respeot
ot one of several derendonts creates a lien agtlust
& property.
Viebelieve 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 tCfitt&e names ci e:kob
plelr~tlftand of c~.chdefendant 13 the JuQment shall
be Indexed, and not the names of eaoh I:laIntlffand
of e-:chdefendant in the suit, and these n-es must
be 1rAexed properly to oreate a lien.
NYK, iiTAL vs. ZCiDY, 70 Taxes 434, e S.0;‘. 606;
N=, 2,TAL ~8. CT,lBBLb70 TCX(LS458, 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,
lr r .( c o t1~pp.1
1 4 113.s.w. (24) 346;
3ECbiITY WTIOML BICJXOF WIC!iiTA FALLS Vi.
ALLiBd(CIT. A~p.1 261 S.7?.1059.
We believe that the yrrbpartest for the County
Clerk to app17 In all crisesis, 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-
#%%%n the _Judgment “1s name should be lndoxed. Th’e
take it that Rich the 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
. . .
P
Hon. Tom A. Clark, page 10
satuter, b!oClothllnva. COOQ, wqra.
Con8oquontl~, r0U are rerpeotSul1~ ldrlrad and
it 18 the opinion of tbie department thst under Artlcl8
5448, Rerlred Clrll Ytatute8, the Count7 Clerk of Mo-
L~IWAO COUnt7, 8hOuld elltibrupon the elphabetIOa1 Index
to hi8 judgmsllt reoord the nime of la o hplaintiif and
or caoh Urfendant appafulng upon the iaoe of a Judgmnt,
in order to efiectuata a judgment Urn.
YOreOter, it IS the OpiniOn Of thie department
that it 1s the 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); and even thoiiijhmc or117Judgment rendered aplalnat
any party to the juament 18 for torts.
Yours very truly
JDS/ob
APPROVE3CCT 23, 1939
4zLzhf2.G
ATTOFUiEYGEHERAL OF TXXiY.3