The fact that the process or other papers are missing from the files will not overcome the presumption of jurisdiction. Williams v. Tooke, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 1114, 1121; Davis v. Tuggle's Adm'r, 297 Ky. 376, 178 S.W.2d 979, 981. In the absence of any showing in the record either one way or the other, a presumption arises in favor of the validity of the judgment and the existence of all matters going to the power of the court to render the judgment.
Out of this public policy, a general presumption of validity is extended to the judgments of courts of general jurisdiction. Vickery, 1999 WL 627647, at *3; Williams v. Tooke, 116 S.W.2d 1114, 1120 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1938, writ dism'd). In the absence of this presumption, a court's judgment would have little import and "there would be no end to troublesome litigation."
Typically the estate of a deceased person is placed in the control of the probate court and any claim against the estate must be presented to the court through its appointed officer, but this rule does have some well-recognized exceptions. Williams v. Tooke, 116 S.W.2d 1114 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1938, writ dism'd). The probate code provides that all claims for money must be presented to the representative of an estate.
34 Tex.Jur.2d § 344. The Texas case of Williams v. Tooke, 116 S.W.2d 1114 (Ct.Civ.Apps.Texarkana 1938) held that the absence of an allegation in the complaint that no administration was pending or necessary does not overcome the presumption of verity attaching to the judgment of every court of competent jurisdiction. The Texas Court there stated:
On November 14, 1933, about 15 years after the judgment of foreclosure, Susie Williams and her children filed suit in the 71st Judicial District Court for Gregg County against practically all the defendants in this case to cancel the judgment of foreclosure above referred to, on the grounds, among others, that the court was without jurisdiction because the petition failed to allege Porter Williams had died intestate and administration of his estate was unnecessary. The case was decided against plaintiffs and on appeal the judgment was affirmed by a Court of Civil Appeals, 116 S.W.2d 1114. An application to the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of error was denied. The complaint alleges numerous errors committed by the Texas courts dealing with the case and that they deliberately, arbitrarily, capriciously and intentionally discriminated against plaintiffs and refused to award them relief, which under the settled laws of the state they were entitled to; and further, the state of Texas, acting by its said judicial departments, in effect, took plaintiffs' said property and gave it to the defendants without consideration, and without due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A.
Id. ( quoting Williams v. Tooke, 116 S.W.2d 1114, 1120 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1938, writ dism'd)). Because the presumption is always in favor of the validity of the judgment, the burden of demonstrating error on appeal lies with the appellant.
Without such a presumption, a court's judgment would have very little import and "there would be no end to troublesome litigation." See Williams v. Tooke, 116 S.W.2d 1114, 1120 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1938, writ dism'd). [A] judgment, the final action taken by a court of competent jurisdiction in disposing of matters properly before it, is of such solemn import and of such supreme importance that every intendment should be given it in order to sustain its validity, that to give further emphasis to the thought would be almost a matter of triteness.
Nevertheless, there is the positive recital in the judgment that such claim was disposed of by an Order of the court prior to the commencement of the jury trial against Hood. It is a settled rule in Texas that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, rendered in the exercise of its usual powers and regular on its face, imports absolute verity, and carries with it a presumption of validity unless vice appears on the face thereof or in the record supporting it. Williams v. Tooke, 116 S.W.2d 1114 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1938, writ dism'd). Every reasonable presumption will be indulged to sustain a judgment and nothing will be presumed against it; all prior requisites to the rendition of a judgment will be presumed to have been fulfilled and the recitals in a judgment will be presumed to state the truth.
' Freeman on Judgments, Vol. 1, § 324, pp. 648-49; State Mtg. Corp. v. Ludwig, 121 Tex. 268, 48 S.W.2d 950; Kubena v. Hatch, 144 Tex. 627, 193 S.W.2d 175 and authorities there cited. To the same effect is Williams v. Tooke, 116 S.W.2d 1114, by this Court, writ dismissed. None of the evidence in No. 7622 is brought forward in this case.
This being the case, it is our opinion that it would not be necessary to allege and prove that there was no administration pending and no necessity therefor. Williams v. Tooke, Tex. Civ. App. 116 S.W.2d 1114, writ dismissed, and cases there cited. Under our statutes of descent and distribution appellees were the only beneficiaries of their deceased children, and as stated in St. Louis, S.F. T. R. Co. v. Seale, Tex. Civ. App. 148 S.W. 1099, 1100, writ refused: