The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-04-24

cogniZanct." -5y Mr. Justice Story. when
he declared in his admirable work, Conflict
Of Ldrs, that "the common justice of all
nations requires that no condemnation should
be pronounced before the party hud an op-
portunity to be heard" By Chef-Justice
Marshall, when in 3 Pet. 3l2, he announced
the same principle as "a maxim Of national
justice and universal application" And by
Mr.. Justice Swayue when he said. i'll the
very case we are now considering, that "to
| deny the respondent hearing would be a
blot upon our jurisprudence and civilization,
and would he contrary to the great princi-
pie, OF The social compact and of the right
administration Of justice
And vet this plaintiff in error, holding
bigh Judicial station under the Government
OF the United States, in violation OF these
great principles, known everywhere aS
maxims Of national justice, not only denied
The respondent hearing in lis court, hut on
the very day on which he committed that
judicial act which the supreme Court OF the
| United States chalaeterized in the strong
| language OF Mr.. Justice Swayne,as as "a blot
upon our Jurisprudence and civilization.' he
entered the order of condemnation and sale
upon twenty days notice, and himself hccame
the purchaser at price so groS'y inadequate
|
man.
| And now when the owner, VINO has been
| deprived OF his estate under the forms OF
| law sy Il judicial fraud. comes into Il court OF
justice to assert his rights in an action OF
eie"tnent against the man who, acting as
| Judge, denied him Il hearing in his court anu
| entered decree Of condemnation and sale
OF his property, be is met lay int very de-
cree OF condemnation and >a!c, entered hy
| his adversary i'll violation of every principle
OF law and national justice, and the count Is
graralv asked tu instruct the jury that the
| decree of condemnation and sale thus OIL
;ained "hls diypsted the plaintiff III eject.
mcnt of his legal title to the property
in controversy, and that they must flnd for
| the defendant"
The court properly refused this inStrue-
ton. The decree Of condemnation aDd sale
en,rred under such circumstances was not
valid for any purpose. 1t was the lncTcSl
uullitv In the language of Judge Bronson
in Bloom Is. Burdick, above cited, " the pro-
ccedin@s were as utterly void rs though lije
court had undertaken TO act when the sub
icct matter was not within its coSnlzance.-
This general principle il not at all affected
BY the allegation Of the order denying Il hear
ing that McEeigh was "a arrbcl. Twin" within
the rebel lines The supreme Court OF the
United States, hy its unanimous opinion, ll
Wall. 2GI, above cited.) has put that question
| forever ut rest. ali i alleged that he (-hc'
| Yei;:h) was in the position OF IN alien enc-
my. ami hence could have no l0tWS S'dndI III
that forum. Ii a,sailed there he could de-
tend there. The liability and the right are
inScpanbie. \ different RESULT would be Il
blot upon our civilization and Jurisprudence
Il hn
| ii would br contrary to the first principles
of the social compact and the right admins
tra!ion OF Justice"
! We are therefore of opinion that tho SAID
Corporation Court Of Alexandria did not
err in refusing the >aid first instruction asked
for by the painIi!f in error.
The Judge then proceeded 10 comment
upon the second instruction asked for ny
Cndcrwood's counsel. which. in effect,
charged hp jury that McEcigh was dvested
of his title by the sale under The attachment
suit, and the deed Of the sheriff (GHdPr-
woods Hite having been the purchaser
under both the conl-cat!on sale and the at-
tachmrnt sale).
Judge Christian, upon this point, pro-
ceedcd to say: 1t is undenElbly true, is
contenoed by the able counsel for the plain
|
sheri1l's deed conycyin. property which has
been duly levied upon aud fairly sold under
a valid Judgment rendered by court OF
competent jurisdiction passes the legal title
| to the purchaser. But it is equally true that
! if the sale made by the sheriff was 1raudu-
lcnty made, and the order of confirmation
of said >a!c was procured by fraud. and the
purchaser WAS Il party TO that fraud,
the deed Of the sheriff will avail nothing
for or against the parties affected by 1t. These
two propositions are both true; they are
| iudependcnt of each other ard stanu WcN
together. The proposition that Il slcrli1>s
deed sold under ii valid judgi,icAt of court
of competent jurisdiction passes The lcGa
title, j.. as Il matter Of course, Sll!lrct |" the
qualification that ali the proceedings afe
regular and bona tide. and free from the
tpint of fraud. II fraud be shown either Ill
the proceedings or sale, or in the Judgment
confirming the sale, the whole proceedings
are ritiltcd. The proceedings OF coufl OF
justice establishing rights for fixing llablsl-
ties must always hc fcuuded upon the fact
that they are carried out 6Ond .ttGie and
without the taiut of fraud. Ii fraud
he Shown The very foundation i poisoned
and all The proceedings are null and rod.
CoultS OF law and courts Of equity have con-
current jurisdiction 10 suppress fraud. II Ii
| ctse of fraud be established the courts will
set aside all transactions founded upon it. bv
whatever machinery they have been effected
and Notwithstanding any contriyance by
which it may have been attempted to pro-
tect them. 1t is irrelevant whether such
machinery and con trivancc consisted il Il de-
cree in equity and purchase under 1t or Il
Judgment at law, or of other Transactions be-
| tween the sectors i'll the maud. Here follows
Il long citation oi authorities. ..
In Rex rs. the Duchess of Kingston, Dc
GRAY. ChicfJustice, said Fraud is an eX.
trin.ic collateral act which vitiates the most
solemn proceedings. of courts of juSi ice. IN
,npIying this rule il matters not whether the
Judgment impugned has been pronounced by
an inferior court or by the highest court OF
iudi,-,tl,re: but in all cases alike, 1t Is COM
netcut for every court. whether superior or
| inferior 10 treat as 4 nul!ity any judgment
which can be clearly shown to have been
Attained bv manifest fraud IN The IAN
pu,uc of Lord Brpugham, in the Earl OF
| I;,ndon rs, Bccher. lit is not an lrrcSl:-
Ioritv. II is not an error here complained q.
Inf II i that the whole proceeding l. coliii'
| s;vo and fraudulent; that it cannot there
fare bc treated as a judicial proceeding, but
NAV be passed by rs araling nothing 10 the
| party who sets II up.
Tha court therefore decided that there was
no error in the court below Ill refusing tile
second instruction.
Judge Christian, after lengthy and elab'
orate review of cases upon these points e:'
tabIlsbing the principles above indicated,
and after making extracts from the foiuml'
nj us depositions in the caCse, TO snow cor.
rupt and fraudulent coul hination on the part
oT Underwood, Oakes -AneS. Johu :. Alley