Burlington hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1845-185?, 1846-04-16

OF the halt breeds themselves, or of their
ass'gnees! This it seems To us would be
'he effeei OF establishing the principles
eontended for by the counsel for the plain.
III III error. tor If those lands are moi now
snnJrct !" our laws when will thew be.
come 50. IL has been seriously doubled
wheiher an express stipulation on the
part nf the State 10 exempt certain Indian
lands forever from taxation. was such
con,rac, as to be placed beyond the reach
OF future legislation. The case of the
State of New Jersey Us Wilson, 7,h
! Cranch X. l6f, however established that
principle. but The Court in that case wen,
to The verge Of Judicial power. The prir.
ciple commended for here would by very
unnatural and unnecessary inference not
only exempt these lands from taxation.
but place them beyond the range Of all
Territorial or State legislation.
But it has been commended that the act Of
1884 is private Statute and therefore
not now 10 be noticed as j. has no. been
sci forth IN The pleadings or the proof. We
have had more serious doubts on this sub.
! Ject than upon any other part Of The case
! but have come TO the conclusion tina, i, ;s
such Statute as should be judicially no.
liced.
The rule followed in Kentucky has
sound reason to support it. that in this
country where all laws public as well as
private are published in the Statute book
the distinction between public and private
Statutes should no longer be preserved
ID Pirlle's Digest 10. The niain reason os
the English rule has certainly ceased, Sd
Tomlin, SIG.
But is this statute private? A statute
is public which concerns the whole PEG.
pie, Mass X. 0. 10 Mass r. OIL and %.
This act surrenders TO the half breeds the
rever,ionary interest and yields up the
presumption right which the United States
although in regard to the half breeds il 10
a private statute We, in regard to the rights
of the Government, that is TO say the PEG.
pie. j. is public law.
We shall next proceed to enquire into
the correctness Of the decision of the Court
below rejecting the proof "tha, the judg.
ment. execution, sheriff's sale aud sher.
lit deed, constituting the evidence intro.
duced by the plaintiff were all procured
by fraud by the said Plaintiff and others
and that the whole title Of the Plaintiff
was based upon fraud and fiction"
The general rule that fraud vi,ia,es
all judgments as well as contracts is to be
taken with some qualifications If vilialed,
that fact cannot be shown on all occasions
aud by all parties. Although a contrary
opinion has been sometimes entertained,
the more recent and sounder doctrine
seems to be tina. party to judgment
cannot cnllaterally impeach it for fraud
4th Scammon's r. 37l. 9th Ohio r. l08
22I Maine R. 100, 81 Johnson r. l8S.
Much less would mere stranger be thus
permitted to impeach it.
As a general rule judgment at law is
a conclusive act 50 far as not 10 be disturb.
ed or even enqnired into in another pro-
ceeding at law. Although obtained by
fraud it is valid, until by direct proceed.
ing in Chancery Instituted for tina, pur.
pose, the remedial power of tina, Court is
invoked and the injustice which the rigid
rules Of the common law would enforce
is prevented.
But even a mere contract however
fraudulent is not a nullity. II is valid to
the parties. 10 the fraud themselves and
as asains, all others, excep, those who
+ have been directly injured thereby. II
5 therefore a Judgment were OF ns higher
nature than simple contract, Webster
did not show himsefin condition TO OBJ.
e ice, TO i, for fraud. |. was not sufficient
e that he had an adverse possession Of the
r land in controversy. defendant in
j ejrc,men. ha. generally such possession.
j. Still where he shows no title he will moi
. be permitted to prove the forgery Of the
$ deed on which the TILE Of the Plaintiff
r rests. Adams Ejec,m't 90 note.
. What has now been said in relation Ia
e the defendant below no. being permitted
e to show fraud applies with still greater
}. force to the objection that he was not al
d lowed 10 show irregulari'y in the proceed
j. ings. az that there was no service nor pub
e LEGATION nor demand, proved before IN.
!. auditor. &c. A wri, Of error would hav,
e been the appropriate mode Of proving de
o fects OF such nature. and no one but
d party thereby injured could even iher'
|. successfully seek remedy.
e Similar in character are the objection
!. thu, have been raised on the ground of tn,
r. unconsliiuli ,naiiy Of the acts Of The legis
!. laure. through which the Indebtedness &C
A. crued and The judgments were Obtained
+, 10Th Pickering X. 81.
= Judgments rendered under an uncons,i
.e tu,ional law are not utilities. A sheriff IL
IN vying and selling under such judgmen
!, would no. be a trespas.er. LIST Chii,]
e. 2lO and note. And this seems TO be
d, ties, upon that subject, Sd Peters R. is3
h The case becomes still stronger whe
,e lands havebeen sold undersuch judgmer
a. and transferred to the purchaser. II III
re Defendant is willing to have his deb, PAL
W by the sale Of his property under such
:. Judgment shall stranger be allowed /,
,e interfere and disturb that arrangement
al II this were permitted. the purchaser a,
y, Sheriff sale holds HE property for TWEEN.
" years, at the mercy Of any intruder WI
il. shall discover Ina, the law under whic
of the Judgment was obtained was unconsl
iuiional, 10th Peters II. All, 10th pickle