§ 1368. Effect of transfer The assignment of a judgment transfers all of the judgment creditor's interest therein, and the credit could not thereafter be garnished or appropriated by a creditor of the judgment creditor.11 12 The assignment of a judgment only does not transfer to the assignee a right of action on a stay bond given in the proceeding.12 § 1369. Rights of parties A judgment assigned by parol may be enforced by the assignee in the name of the original plaintiff.13 Where a judgment is assigned, the assignee is the only party who can maintain an action thereon, or enforce it by execution.14 When an assignment of a judgment has been recorded in the court where entered, or where it has been sent on appeal, or other legal transfer, it transfers both the legal and equitable title to the assignee, and the assignor has no greater right therein than any other stranger to the record.15 A plea of res judicata, good against a judgment creditor, is good against a party to whom the judgment has been assigned, and who seeks to enforce it against the pleader.1 16 In an action by a surety, who had paid part of the note in consideration of the holder's agreement to assign part of a judgment against the maker, a direction that payment be made out of the proceeds of the renewal note in satisfaction of the judgment, when such notes should be paid, was proper.1 The assignment of a note to one who knew that it had passed into judgment, with indorsement "Assigned with recourse," does not make the assignor a guarantor of the payment, as the words "with recourse," read into the assignment of the judgment, create no liability other or different from that of the assignor.18 11 Ives v. Addison, 17 P. 797, 39 Kan. 172. 12 Crist v. McDaniel, 82 P. 991, 15 Okl. 469. 18 Gilmore v. Harpster, 133 P. 726, 90 Kan. 405. 14 Stein v. Scanlan, 127 P. 483, 34 Okl. 801, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 895. 15 Stein v. Scanlan, 127 P. 483, 34 Okl. 801, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 895. 16 Porter v. Bagby, 31 P. 1058, 50 Kan. 412. 17 Magee v. Snyder, 103 Kan. 558, 175 P. 597. 18 Redden V. First Nat. Bank, 71 P. 578, 66 Kan. 747. ARTICLE IX COLLATERAL ATTACK DIVISION I.-JUDGMENTS IMPEACHABLE COLLATERALLY Sections 1371. In general. 1372. Particular courts-County court-District court. 1374. Nature of subject-matter. § 1371. In general Every intendment will be indulged to support a judgment erally attacked.19 collat A judgment of a court having jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter cannot be attacked collaterally.20 19 Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okl. 277, 190 P: 681. 20 Pritchard v. Madren, 2 P. 691, 31 Kan. 38. Where court has jurisdiction of subject-matter of an action and of the § 1372. Particular courts-County court-District court The judgment of a county court, being that of a court of general jurisdiction, is not subject to collateral attack, and may not be impeached by evidence aliunde.21 A judgment of the district court is not subject to collateral attack unless for want of jurisdiction.22 A decree of a federal court in a cause of which it had jurisdiction, being final when not appealed from, cannot be reviewed in a collateral proceeding.23 § 1374. Nature of subject-matter Where the judgment of a domestic court of competent jurisdiction expressly finds service of process upon a garnishee, such finding cannot be attacked in a collateral proceeding.24 parties, its order and judgments as to all matters involved are final and conclusive, unless corrected or modified on appeal. Rennolds v. Guthrie, 103 Kan. 829, 177 P. 359. The judgment of a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties cannot be impeached collaterally in an action between the same parties, or their privies in law, upon a point put in issue and decided; but the party desiring to avoid the judgment must apply to the court which pronounced it to have it vacated. McCormick v. McCormick, 107 P. 546, 82 Kan. 31. Where a journal entry shows that the plaintiff in the action "moves the court here to dismiss this action, without prejudice to a future action, at cost of plaintiff, which is accordingly done," and afterwards an execution is issued to recover the costs, and real estate of the plaintiff is levied upon and sold for that purpose, and the sale confirmed by the court, and a sheriff's deed executed, and the purchaser takes possession of the real estate, such journal entry is a sufficient judgment, when collaterally attacked, to uphold the sheriff's deed, and the other proceedings had under it. Houston v. Clark, 13 P. 739, 36 Kan. 412. 21 King v. Mitchell (Okl.) 171 P. 725; Welch v. Focht (Okl.) 171 P. 730, L. R. A. 1918D, 1163. An order, made by the county court within its jurisdiction on appeal in tax proceedings under Rev. Laws 1910, § 7449, cannot be attacked in subsequent proceedings to enjoin the levying of a tax warrant, though it is grossly erroneous. Rogers v. Duncan, 57 Okl. 20, 156 P. 678. Where no appeal was taken from the probate in county court of the will of a full-blood Indian, who disinherited her spouse, the probate proceedings 22 McDougal v. Rice, 79 Okl. 303, 193 P. 415. 23 Bowen v. Carter, 144 P. 170, 42 Okl. 565. 24 Wheatland Grain & Lumber Co. v. Downing (Okl.) 173 P. 956. HON.PL.& PRAC.-84 (1329) A judgment adjudicating the title to realty in an action in which the court had jurisdiction of the parties cannot be attacked collaterally in a subsequent ejectment action between the same parties, where the judgment is part of the chain of title of one party." DIVISION II.-GROUNDS OF ATTACK § 1375. Invalidity-In general A void judgment or order of the trial court may be collaterally attacked.26 A judgment against a deceased defendant, who had been duly served with process, is void,27 as is also a judgment rendered against a national bank which has gone into voluntary liquidation, and to dissolve which proper steps have been taken.28 But a judgment which is voidable only cannot be attacked in a collateral proceeding.20 29 The fact that the term at which a void judgment was rendered has expired does not give the judgment validity, and it may be attacked at any time upon motion or collaterally.30 could not be collaterally attacked, in subsequent proceedings to partition land, on the ground that the will was void for noncompliance with the federal statute. Homer v. McCurtain, 138 P. 807, 40 Okl. 406. 25 Davis v. Davis, 101 Kan. 395, 166 P. 515. A judgment quieting title of a tax deed holder rendered by a court having jurisdiction cannot be impeached in a collateral action of ejectment, nor can the validity of the tax deed be relitigated in such an action, no matter how vulnerable it might have been if it had been properly assailed. Caldwell v. Bigger, 90 P. 1095, 76 Kan. 49. 26 Yawitz V. Hopkins (Okl.) 174 P. 257. The county court's void decree, attempting to partition restricted Indian lands, may be attacked collaterally, though the records of the partition proceedings do not show that such lands are restricted. Lewis v. Gillard (Okl.) 173 P. 1136. 27 A judgment for money, and for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon real estate, against a deceased defendant, who had theretofore been duly served with process, is void, and hence may be collaterally impeached, because thereof by the heirs of the deceased, if not made parties to the foreclosure proceeding, in an action brought by them for the recovery of the land sold and conveyed in satisfaction of the judgment. Kager v. Vickery, 59 P. 628, 61 Kan. 342, 49 L. R. A 153, 78 Am. St. Rep. 318. 28 Hodgson v. McKinstrey, 3 Kan. App. 412, 42 P. 929. 29 Morris v. Robbins, 111 P. 470, 83 Kan. 335. A decision on a record and case-made, regular, and clearly showing juris diction, but defective for want of jurisdiction, is merely voidable and not subject to collateral attack. Edwards v. Smith, 142 P. 302, 42 Okl. 544. 30 Under Rev. Laws 1910, § 5274, authorizing vacation of a void judgment A default judgment rendered before garnishees were required by statute to file their answer is voidable but not void, and unless attacked in some manner provided by law will be upheld.31 § 1377. Want of jurisdiction A judgment rendered without jurisdiction, being void, is subject to collateral attack.32 Jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over any subject, including both domestic and foreign judgments, may be inquired into in every court when proceeding is relied on before such other court by a party claiming the benefit of the proceeding.3 33 at any time on motion of any interested party, fact that term at which it was rendered has expired does not give it validity and it may be attacked at any time upon motion or collaterally. Continental Gin Co. v. Arnold (Okl.) 167 P. 613, L. R. A. 1918B, 511. 31 Wheatland Grain & Lumber Co. v. Downing (Okl.) 173 P. 956. A default judgment is not void on collateral attack, even if the petition on which it was rendered did not state a cause of action. Brunbaugh v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 53, 107 P. 792. 32 First State Bank of Addington v. Latimer, 48 Okl. 104, 149 P. 1099; Clayton v. Clayton, 4 Colo. 410; Mortgage Trust Co. of Pennsylvania v. Redd, 88 P. 473, 38 Colo. 458, 8 L. R. A: (N. S.) 1215, 120 Am. St. Rep. 132; Kelso v. Norton, 87 P. 184, 74 Kan. 442; McMurray v. Same, Id.; Furgeson v. Jones, 20 P. 842, 17 Or. 204, 3 L. R. A. 620, 11 Am. St. Rep. 808; J. B. Watkins Land-Mortg. Co. v. Mullen, 54 P. 921, 8 Kan. App. 705, judgment reversed 61 P. 385, 62 Kan. 1, 84 Am. St. Rep. 372. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction of the person is null and void, and may be shown to be void in a collateral, as well as a direct, proceeding, by extrinsic evidence as well as by the record itself. Jefferson v. Gallagher, 56 Okl. 405, 150 P. 1071. Where judgment is void because rendered without jurisdiction of person, it is supported by no presumptions, and may be impeached in any action. Condit v. Condit (Oki.) 168 P. 456. Judgment void because rendered without jurisdiction of person may be shown to be void in collateral, as well as direct proceeding, and by extrinsic evidence as well as by record itself. Id. Where judgment is void because rendered without jurisdiction of person, it is not necessary to take any steps to have it reversed, vacated, or set aside. Id. Judgment rendered without jurisdiction of person is a mere nullity as to plaintiff, defendant, and third persons. Id. 33 Sharp v. Sharp (Okl.) 166 P. 175, L. R. A. 1917F, 562. The jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over any subject may be inquired into in every court when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter by a party claiming the benefit of such proceedings. Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Ward, 85 P. 459, 16 Okl. 131, judgment affirmed 28 S. Ct. 239, 208 U. S. 126, 52 L. Ed. 420. A court's jurisdiction over the subject-matter may be inquired into in ev |