However, a judgment lien will not attach unless a judgment creditor takes the steps necessary to comply with § 52.003 of the Texas Property Code. Texas Am. Bank v. Southern Union Exploration, 714 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See also, Womack v. Paris Grocer Co., 166 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1942),writ ref'd, 140 Tex. 423, 168 S.W.2d 645 (1943); Fordyce-Crossett Sales Co. v. Erwin, 121 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1938, no writ); Chamlee v. Chamlee, 113 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1938, no writ). Furthermore, it is the judgment creditor's duty to insure the abstract includes the statutorily required information.

Although the dormancy of the judgment was fatal to the creation of a lien by itself, the Court's strict compliance with the statutes governing the creation of judgment liens attests to the uniform strictness with which Texas courts apply those statutes. See also, McGlothlin v. Coody, 59 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Com.App. 1933); Fordyce-Crosset Sales Co. v. Erwin, 121 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1938, no writ); Accord, Chamlee v. Chamlee, 113 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1938, no writ). Recent case law has also interpreted the governing statutes strictly.

Such a lien did not exist at common law. ( Fordyce-Crossett Sales Co. v. Erwin, (Tex.Civ.App.) 121 S.W.2d 491, 493; Smith v. Toman, 118 A.L.R. 924, 926; Hagemann v. Pinska, (Mo.) 37 S.W.2d 463, 465; Waldock v. Bedell, (Ohio App.) 18 N.E.2d 828, 830; 15 R. C. L., pp. 793, 794, secs. 248, 250; 34 C. J., pp. 567-569, secs. 870, 871.) So that it will be seen that this statute, instead of being a limitation or regulation of a common law right, confers a new and unusual right. It differs also from a mortgage or other contract lien, wherein and whereby the debtor voluntarily encumbers, pledges, or hypothecates certain specific property for the payment of his debt.

The appellee introduced an abstract of the judgment it had against the appellant and Stewart which had been filed and recorded in the abstract of judgment records of Wilbarger County, Texas on April 2, 1931, but this instrument was invalid as a lien since it was not made and recorded in compliance with articles 5447 and 5448 of the civil statutes. Fordyce-Crossett Sales Co. v. Erwin et al., Tex. Civ. App. 121 S.W.2d 491. The appellant relied almost exclusively on his own testimony to establish a claim of homestead to the lot involved and his evidence was conflicting, contradictory and unsatisfactory.