New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-12
Id W LYT,ELLIGRNOE

lIp!TI OF foFEIGs oW0KCE-THk MORALE OF
ruE ioSrRovrsst.
In The matter Of the estate u John B.cs dec~ss-t
Tax SuRRocarE-The intesate died in The month
Il March. 1856 and letters Of Administration upon bis
estate were granted to bis John, and III Eabeih
claiming 20 be his widow. In July, Reboccs Black
fl.a Der petition for the revocation Of the grant %
administration on the ground thet she was the
widow and Elizabeth was not the widow Of the in,es-
tate /. now becomes my duty to decide upon these
conflicting clsims.
Nsppears that John and Rebeoca Black were mar
ned on the 1874 day Of January 1875, cohsb'ted to-
gether about twelve years and had ISSUE two children
Some time in TIE year lSS1 Ms. Blsck lett her hus-
band and thencefoIth ceased 10 live with him After
this absrdcnme nj had rtinped eleven or twelve years
the husband cast about for the means Of dssoiyn the
uatrmonisl bond and having been unsuccessful IN an
application 10 the Legislature OF the stats OF New ok
be rad recourse TO Tie Intervention OF the Coart Oh
CbaIcery Of the State Of New-Ieisey 10 which uris
6cticn his wife had been previously rsedng and hnay
succeeded in procuring decree of that Court decae-
ing divorce o; the parties a rIRcNl0 mEri"oFn
Wirfrl 6esertion BY husband wife for ave con-
secutive years IT, BY the law OF NewJersey sufficient
ground for divorce but the statute provides IN u at
the time Of nsttutrg the proceedings the defendant
shaL have been an sctual resident oil tue Ss,e sepa-
rate from the other party, for five years. The decree
Of the Court of Chaneery, which entered 10 the
tenn OF March 1850 leces the fling of the bill on tue
18th day of September lS49 that process OF subpoena
70 appear and answer had been Guly issusd aud re.
"tuTIed served by tie Sheriff of the County OF Essex
that the defendant hsd not appeared, and the con
plairspt by ceposons hsd sho sasfsc sory TO the
Court that tie said defendant was an actaa dent
"in the State at the time Of the complalnsnts uug
" his said bill of complaint; that the defendant had
"been actual resident OF the State or the term oil
five years, during which said deserton had been
COT tinued and the defendant had been guilty OF
wfllful, continued and obstinste desection OF her
q - fnr ftpoF
Of facts appearing to the Court, the decree oil dN0oe
on looking into the proceedings I find that all The
material facts to give the Court iurscicti02w were At
legged in the bill of complaint aud estsbsheIoy the
evidence. subpoena to appear and answer was Is
sued dated the 10Th day OF September, lSi9, ano 10
tuinabe on the sth day OF October ensuing. fas
process was regularly returned by the Sheriff OF the
County of Essex " served :" an order for taking
proofs was entered the 2lst day Of December, 1879
whereupOn it ecited that the defendant had been
duly suBuCLed by witt and on the ID dsy OF
January 1850. dispositions verifying the charges in
tie bill of complaint were taken before Master IN
Ch0LCery. On their face all the proceedings were
regular and no exception can be taken to their SUI
hcieICy.
Iis is the decree OF Court of another State, and
the question arises what weight is TO be attached TO It
in this State The Constitution of the lnted states
proydes that full faith and credit shall be given IN
leach Stale to the public acts records aud Judicial
proceedings of every other State, and that C0n-
"gress mey by general laws prescribe the manner In
(which sich acts, records and proceedings shall be
proved and the effect thereof Under the authority
thus conferred Congress, by the act OF May 70, L9O,
provided particular method Of proving sneh records
ard directed that wien so proved, they should
have such faith and crecit given to them In every
"Cosr within the United States, Is they have by laS
or usage in the Courts Of tie State from whence sid
records are or shal be taken Tlis language 10
plain and by its obvious force requires the same hh
and CT, cit for judicial record in all the States OF the
Union as by law or usage II possesses n the State
lara he md il ran There ".
ever at first in the early period of our Judicial history
a disposition In the Courts of New York a. well as In
tose Of other States TO refuse full credit 10 such
records and several decisions we've made holding that
a iuC Rment recovered In another State hsd no more
f ct in this jurisdiction than foreign judgment, aud
was in fact 10 be treated afiOrdng snly Prma fscle
evidence OF demand, claim or night founded upon H.
But sfter the Of Mills vs.. Duyes, Cranch' X
o. iSl In the Supreme Court of the ned States, our
tribunals recedeo from this ground, and admitted jufg
n,enis in other States fairly and regularly ootstd as
fun and cCLclusive evidence OF the matter, adJudi
Gated. lAndrtws vs.. Montgomery, ~ john. K i6!.
Still this doctrine has IN this Stae always been held
in tubseryience to the principle that TO eLutie
the judgment to full faith and credit,
the Court 10 which 1t was rendered must have had l.
rsdiotion of the person aud of the subject matter
tBcrCen w. Fitch, IL John. X. 1871 Jurisdiction Of
the subject matter to be tested by the authorized eA
teL of the power OF the Count III regard - the alleged
cause of action In the present case the Court OF
Cbancery of New Jersey Jurisdiction 10 grant
adyolce for GeeertiOn charged 10 the bill OF com
rlant lEmtrs Digest p. 1879 sec. ~ All the neced'
ss aegat ons to justify the decree Gr aSpSe T SS
ioyer 10 try that question did try H. snd pronounced
Judgment. Having jurisdiction of the subject matter
the merits of their decson cannot be Investigated and
criticised coateray In another tribunal. lolsseh Va
Bfiggs 9 Mas. X. 462.)
IRE only point remaining for sOlI ton, then relates
10 The jurtdcon Of the Court in regard to the person
Of the defendant. There is no plausible ground Tor
questioning the soundness OF the rule that no one Is
bound personally by Judicial proceedings without eH
IRE 3 or constructive notice. Notice OF some kind IS
The vital breath 10 animate judicial jurisdiction over
the peron II is the primary element OF the apph "a
tiop Of the iudicstOry 20 yer IL Is the essence OF
cause Without II there cannot be parties, and with
out artes there msy be the form OF sentedce, but no
judgment obigating the person. think there can %
10 uoubt to the correctness OF this doctrine ana ia
foundation in natural right. Ii Is based upon those
Urn ciples OF Justice which are acknowledged wherever
iish rees has sway. 1t was recognized IN Engiand
many years since; il has always been the law OF this
State hes been extensively received throughout the
Uticn and has received the appreciation OF the Su-
prfme Court of the United States.
Il is clear then that judgment rendered by Court
OF comps ter ursdctiOn III another Safe may be ques
on the ground that the defend received
tice of tie on ms ncetent Of the suit But in the fHoe
CT rule an asked TO hold that il the record of the
dgmeLt contain ecitals asserting TIE due servce OF
IroC eos upon the DE- ndant, such reeals are coz
elusive evidence Of u jurisdiction Of tho Court over
the person Of the defendant and cannot be contro-
ytlted. # recital Of personal notice 70 tue
dt,euasrt be conclusive; , o. cGur'' o,aer ts.t
Court might obtain jurisdiction Il wold only
be necessary to recite that 1t had jurisdiction.
This would be aa ediice wthou: a foundAron-s pro
GEES OF structure similar 70 that noticed by the satrst
az building rom the roof downward. The right OF per-
q nal notice express or constructive would be mere
shadow, exposed to this mode Of subverson. 1t
would rect 10 mere name and not in substancs. The
ght to impeach record fur want OF personal Jarsdic-
ten whose recitas asserting peoona jurisdiction are
conclusive il the right 20 impeach record which Is
ulimp escbabe-a proposition absurd and seh-contra
dctofy in iis very terms.
We ccme down then, 10 the position that the de-
fepdent In answer 10 this re ord and the decree OF
a a.ior.ned frnrn ahn EILD that aha had