245 S.W.2d 307 (1952)
The former owner contended that the judgment in the tax suit was invalid and void in so far as he was concerned because he was not served with citation, and that he did not enter any appearance in the suit. Hence he insisted that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over his person. On the other hand, the purchaser said the judgment was not void and was not subject to collateral attack in the case at the bar. The purchaser further contended that the former owner, by accepting the benefits accruing to him under the same, was estopped from asserting in this suit that such judgment was void or invalid. Two lots had been sold. The former owner claimed the proceeds from the court registry from one lot, then sued the purchaser in the case at the bar on the other lot.
- In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the court held that where a personal judgment had been rendered against the former owner by a domestic court of general jurisdiction, and under the same his property has been seized and sold, he would not have been allowed to show by evidence dehors the record that the judgment was rendered without any service whatever upon him.
- He was estopped by accepting the proceeds.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.