Tex. 209, 1882 WL 9490 (1881); Switzer v. Smith, 300 S.W. 31, 33 (Tex. Comm'n App.1927, judgm't adopted). 8 . On rehearing, York contends that the application of this rule frustrates the purpose of the automatic stay. But the rule is based upon a competing and equally valid principle, that of tire need for "absolute verity” of judgments that appear regular and are no longer subject to direct attack. See Treadway, 57 Tex. 209, 1882 WL 9490, at *4-5. York could have raised the pending bankruptcy proceeding in the justice court, thereby making the judgment subject to collateral attack, but he failed to do so. In addition, extrinsic evidence is available to challenge a void judgment in a direct attack, such as in a bill of review. 9 . See Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 553-55 (Tex.2000) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Sovereign immunity refers to the State’s
holding that sometimes court must look at facts involving merits of claim to determine its jurisdiction to hear claim holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear a cue claim raised for the first time on appeal holding that an effective notice of appeal must be filed for this court to have jurisdiction to hear the case holding if the legislature had the power to confer upon the county commissioners jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether or not a town was of undue extent and to deprive it of a part of its territory then the proceeding being statutory before a body of limited powers the record must show affirmatively that such a case was brought before them as they were authorized to hear and determine and that all the jurisdictional facts were found to exist where the jurisdiction and power to hear and determine depends upon the existence of a fact that fact must appear or the proceedings are coram non judice and void holding that we must first determine our jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the appeal