when “a judgment is collaterally attacked, every reasonable presumption that may be necessary to uphold it will be indulged, the necessary jurisdictional facts will be presumed, and it will be presumed also that in rendering the judgment, the court complied with all the mandatory provisions regulating its exercise of power”
How later courts described this case
- when “a judgment is collaterally attacked, every reasonable presumption that may be necessary to uphold it will be indulged, the necessary jurisdictional facts will be presumed, and it will be presumed also that in rendering the judgment, the court complied with all the mandatory provisions regulating its exercise of power”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
In view of the Chief Judge’s special concurrence, I think that the question *642 of abstention and the principles invoking it so recently discussed by the full Court in United Services Life Ins. Co. v. Delaney, 5 Cir., 1964, en banc, 328 F.2d 483 , cert. denied, 1964, Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v. First National Bank in Dallas, 377 U.S. 935 , 84 S.Ct. 1335 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 , should be deferred to a situation directly presenting the problem.