## Facts

- C. B. Marshall owned two lots (Lots 6 and 18) and failed to pay property taxes.
- In a 1945 delinquent-tax suit, a Texas district court entered a default judgment reciting that Marshall and his wife had been “duly cited in terms of law” and had made default, foreclosed the tax lien, and ordered sale of each lot.
- Both lots were sold under the judgment; the tax debt was satisfied.
- Marshall received and kept $626.41 in surplus proceeds from the sale of Lot 6.
- Lot 18 was sold and conveyed to Lockhead.
- Marshall later sued Lockhead seeking to set aside the 1945 tax judgment as void and to recover title and possession of Lot 18.
- In the later suit, Marshall offered evidence outside the tax-suit record that he was never served and did not appear, arguing the tax judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether a party may collaterally attack a prior domestic judgment that recites due citation by offering extrinsic evidence that service was not made.
2. Whether accepting and retaining benefits paid under the prior judgment estops the party from later asserting the judgment’s invalidity in a subsequent suit over property sold under that judgment.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment refusing to set aside the prior tax judgment and denying Marshall recovery of Lot 18.
- The court held that a domestic judgment of a court of general jurisdiction, regular on its face and reciting due citation, is not subject to collateral attack through evidence outside the record disputing service.
- The court also held Marshall was estopped to challenge the judgment because he accepted and retained the surplus proceeds paid to him under the same judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A collateral attack on a prior judgment generally is limited to whether the judgment is void on its face; recitals of due citation in a facially regular judgment of a court of general jurisdiction cannot be contradicted by extrinsic evidence in later litigation over property sold under that judgment.
- Public policy favors finality of judgments and security of titles arising from judicial sales; later courts will not re-try service facts not shown by the original record when the judgment contains a recital of proper service.
- A party who accepts and retains the benefits (fruits) of a judgment may be estopped from later asserting that the judgment is invalid.

## Conclusion

Because the tax-foreclosure judgment was facially valid and recited due service, Marshall could not collaterally impeach it with evidence outside the record, and his retention of surplus sale proceeds independently barred his challenge; title to Lot 18 remained with Lockhead.


Marshall v. Lockhead, 245 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1952)