Texas Court held in Mingus v. Wadley, 115 Tex. 551, 285 S.W. 1084 (Tex. 1926): The general rule is where the cause of action and remedy for its enforcement are derived not from the common law but from the statute, the statutory provisions are mandatory and exclusive, and must be complied with in all respects or the action is not maintainable. Mingus, 285 S.W. at 1087. Further, the Court stated: ". . . there is no presumption of jurisdiction where a court, although it is one of general jurisdiction, exercises special statutory powers in a special statutory manner or otherwise than according to the courts of the common law, since under such circumstances the court stands with reference to the special power exercised on the same footing with courts of limited and inferior jurisdiction." Mingus, 285 S.W. at 1089 (quoting 15 CORPUS JURIS Courts, 148(c), at 831-32). Although Mingus represented the dominant approach when it was decided, "the modern direction of policy is to reduce the vulnerability of final judgments to attack on the ground that the tribunal lacked subject matter jurisdiction." RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS 11 cmt. e, at 113 (1982). See generally Boskey & Braucher, Jurisdiction and Collateral Attack, 40 COLUM. L. REV. 1006 (1940); Note, Filling the Void: Jurisdictional Power and Jurisdictional Attacks on Judgements, 87 YALE L.J. 164 (1977).