The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-04-24
UNDERWOOD va. McvEI;I7.
The Gonii>catiOn PrNceetiings Pro-
nounccsi Fraudulent.
Oakes Ames & Co. in the Case.

case oil L nueFWOOu Us. hcN eiSu was ueii'-
cred Yesterday by Judge Christian, the other
four Judges concurrinS. H. was an appeal
from the Corporation Court OF Alexandria.
MCNcigh brought an action Of r]ectment
against Judg" Underwood aud j. q. Force,
trustee for Mrs Underwood. to recover posses
sion Of his residence, occupied by the Un-
derwood family since 1864 until the present
iinc and the back rents and profits due OIL
the same.
The defendants Underwood and wife) re-
lied on two claim, of title the first being Il
deed from the Marshal OF the United States
to Mrs Underwood ~ purchaser ut sale
| made under proceedings in contlScation in
the United States District Court, presided
over hy Judge Underwood, in which Nc
Weigh appeared by cuurseh- to daefena him
self and his property and his answer o!
appearance by counsel was stricken out by
order of the judge, and his property con-
ti3clIed without McVrig'i being allowed an
opportunity of being heard.
This decd rccit"d that the property had
been sold TO IIrs. Underwood for $3.50.
The evidence showed that it was worth from
100000 TO $4,000. The second claim Of
!it'c wa, Il deed from the sheriff of the city
of Alexandria 10 Mrs. Underwood Is pur-
chaser at sale made under certain attach
mcut and proceeding instituted in the Cor
pora;ion Court in 1851 ny creditors Of Nc
Weigh to attach his property. This deed re-
cited that the property had been sold to Mrs
Underwood Tor & 200. The proceedings in
the couii-railon cast. and also tn" proceed
| iny> in the attachment ease. were introduced
| ny Judge Underwood and wife II parts Of
munimcuts of their title.
Mr.. McNcigh contended that the proceed
| ngs in both cases plainly showed fraud upon
| their face, and he introduced the dispositions
| of Mr.. J. &. Baldcrson. of the firm of Balder-
| son, Ward Il Co., of Baltimore Mr.. FraHcis
Dane, OF the firm Of Francis Dane Il Co., Of
| Boston. and Mr.. Robinson, OF the tirui Of
kimball. Roisin>ontS IL Co., OF Boston, his credi-
| tors aud pIai1tits in said attachment suits,
and gentlemen OF the highest standing who
We're conycrsant with all the facts Us they
occurred. and were present at the contSca-
| ton sale and attachment sale. TO show ac-
ttlal trIul. in fact on the part of Judge Tn
! d"rWool. and OF Oakes AmeS, John Is. 81 LEY,
and samuel Hooper, members of Congress
from Massachusetts. and. more recently, OF
Cicii.-Mobilicr notorlcty. Edward J. Tn
derwooi, son of the Judge. John Under
wood. n ular.lli and nephew of the Judge,
ilIu ~ Hililil ~ i'hi'''ii, "'phla
were alleged 10 lie in the ring of fraud with
| the .Jud@r 10 buy up. under the said pro-
ccciin=>. all OF McNcigh's property in AL.
cxandra. consisting of some twenty-odd
.aluablc hnllscs and lots. warehouses, and
| ~ hari prOpcrty-worih some Sl5a,0a0.
In The Corporation Court Judge Under
weed and wife, hy their counsel, asked the
court TO Instruct the jury thai the marshars
deed aud the sheri'l's deed above mentioned
conveyed TO them the absolute legal right
to the property, which instructions the court
refused to give, but gave instructions asked
for by Men Nciyh'- counsel in effect that those
deeds did convey the legal title, and they
must find tor the defendants, unless they
should ind that the sales were fraudulently
made and the confirmation thereof procured
t,y fraud. and the defendants, or either of
them. were Vriyy 10 such frauds. or bud 1T
tlcc os the SAME, or Of such circumstances
Is would have put prudent bona tide
purchaser upon the inquiry in respect
thereto and moreover, that if the jury
hc!ryrG from he evidence that the defend
ants. OI either OF them, combined with John
i. Alley and others to purchase The property
claimed in this suit 1T u sacrifice, and they
did 50 purchase at Il sacrifice; and il they
should further believe that the said defend
ants, or either Of them, in pursuance OF such
combination, 30 acted is TO prevent cOmpeti-
Iion at said sales. or to prevent tine said pro-
pr,ty from realizing Il fair value, then such
combination and action were fraudulent and
void, and the iuly must find for the plain
tit, The cause was argued before the jury
upon these instructions aud the proceedings
and evidence above mentioned 10y Judge Ii.
". Thomas, cl Fairfax, aud John Howard,
Esq for the plaini!ti, and by Mr.. ). Fergu-
sou Beach. OF Alexandria. for the defend
ants. Bat the jury, after IA brief colisultl-
ton, rs was stated IN the papers at the Time,
touud Il verdict for The plaintiff, and also L
verdict Tor the rents which had accrued our
iug the time OF Judge CndcrWu0d's occu-
lAncy nf the property. No motion WAS made
Tor a new trial by the defendants on the
ground that the verdict WAS contrary to The
evidence. or on any other ground, and the
court c1lcrcd judgIcn. for McNclSh.
judge Underwood and wife appealed to
the Supreme Court of Appeals, and that
Court ,uauimOuSiy decided that there was
10 error III The proceedings Ill the court be-
low. ';hc Court said that the jury lad
found that tie whole proceedings OF conhs-
cation and attachment were fraudulent; that
no new trial had been asked for upon the
ground that the verdict was contrary TO the
evidence, and that il such Il motion had been
made The court would have Dcen clearly OF
opjriun that the verdict of the jury was
right. The opinion OF the court was very
elaborate and learned, reviewing all the au-
thorlies cited by counsel on points discussed
in he aryunent. Weqliote from the opinion
Of The court:
The sentence of condemnation and sale
was Il naIlty: void IN toto. 1t was rendered
absolutely void by the act Of the court IN re-
tl,sing to permit McFeigh TO appear ana DE
beard The authorities on this point are
overwhelming. and the decisions OF all The
tribunals Of every country where IN cullghl-
en"d jurisprudence prevails are all one way.
1t lies al the very foundation Of justice that
every person who is TO be affected by IN ad-
Indication should bavc the opportunity of
bciD. heard in defence, both in repclllng the
ALLEGATIONS OF fact and upon the matter or
law, and no sentence OF any court Is entltlcd
10 the least respect ln anr other court or else
where when it has been pronounced er pare
and withou, opportunity of defence. An
examination of 10th sides of the question
and del,t,eraiion between the claims and al-
legations OF the contending parties nave
heen deemed essentially necessary to the pro-
ner administration OF justice by all nations
and in every stage OF soe'ai exlstenee
tribunal which decides without healins .ae
defendant, or giving him an oppos.unsyt raos tto to
be beard, cannot claim for Its deereeS toe
weight OF judicial sentence.
These principles, which form thc very
foundation of the common law, have been
annnuuced by the ablest ana most els.i'r
su!>hcd juri.ts as naxms OF national justice
and universal application: by Lora bins-
lcln. wien he said Earl OF Bandon Is.
- =. u. Il In E10l. - NAV