Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1873-04-25
The NeVeigs,-UndcTwood Case.
IFro,n rho Richmond Dispatch.


CORPORATION Court Of Alexandra. McEcigh
brought an action Of Gjectment against Judge
Underwood aud j. g. Force, trustee for Mrs.
Underwood, to recover possession of his resi-
deuce, occupied by the Underwood family since
1854 until the present time, and the back rents
and profits due on the same.
The defendants Underwood and wilc) relied
nm TWO claims of titlc--thc first being Il deed
from the Marshal of the Unite States to Mrs.
Underwood as purchaser at Il sale made under
proceedings in coniiScalion in the United States
District Court, presided over by Jude Under
wood, in which McFc igh appeared by counsel
to drlard himself and his property; and his
answer Of appearance by counsel was stricken
out by order of the Judge, aud his property con-
Gscated without McV cigh being allowed an cp-
portuuity Of being heard
This deed recitcd that the property had been
sold to Mrs Underwood for $3.50. The cvi-
dcnce showed that it was worth from S20,00O
to ?o5. 900 The second claim Of title was Il
decd from The sheriff Of the city Of Alexandria
! to Mr.. Underwood as purchaser at Il sale made
under certain attachment and proceed
ing instituted in the Corporation Court IN
1864 by creditors Of McF cgh to attach his
properly. This deed rccited that the property
mad teen sold to Mrs. Underwood Tor $1,000:
The proceedings i'll the conli>ca:lon case, and
also the PROCEEDINGS in the attachment Case
were Introduced by Judge Underwood and wife
as parts of mun!ments Of their title
hlr. McNcigi contcndcd that the proceedings
IN both cases plainly showed fraud upon their
face, aud he Introduced the dispositions of Mr.
! j G.. Bu!der,on, OF the firm Of BalderSon
Ward & Co.. Of Baltimore Mr.. Francis Dane
OF the firm of Francis Daue a. Co., of Boston,
and Mr.. Robinson, of the firm of klmball,
| +. ,biDson l. Co.. Of Boston, his creditors and
plaintiff, in said attachment SUITS and gentle
men of the highest standing who were couver-
| sant with all the facts as they occurred, and
we're prcscut at the couli>catlon sale aud attach
rent sale, to show actual fraud in fact, on the
mart Of Judge Underwood, aud of Cakes Amc>,
] ohm B. Alley. and Samuel Hooper members
of Congress from Massachusetts, and, more re-
Gently. of Credit Mobilicr notoricty. Edward
| J. Underwood, son of the Judge, John Under
wood. u marshal ana nephew OF the Judge,
and VIM. y. Duncan deputy marshal, We're
! alleged To be III the ring fraud with the Judge
| to buy up, under the said proceedings, all OF
/ McNcigh's properly in Alexandria, consisting
| of some twenty Id valuable. houses AID lois,
warehouses, aud wharf property --worth Spme
| Slju,UOU
Ia the Corporation G ,urt Judge Underwood
and wife by their counsel, asked the court to
Instruct The jury that the mal$hal.s deed aud
! the .icr;il" decd above mcntluncd conveyed to
them the absolute legal right to the property,
which Instructions the court refused TO give
I'm, ravr instructions aSkel for by McNc,gh $
| cours:I in effect that those deeds did convey
thc LEGAL title, and they must find for the de-
fend.nts unEe IS they >hou'd find that the sales
We're fraldu entity made aud the confiScltlon
thereof procured by fraud, and the defendants,
or either OF them, were prlvy to such frauds,
or had notice Of the same, or OF such clrcum-
/ stances as would have put pr utcnt 6onu tte
purchaser upon the iaqnlry 10 respect thereto )
and moreover, that il the jury believed from
the evidence that the defendants, or either OF
them, combined with John B. Alley and othcls
TO purchase the property claimed IN this suit at
sacrifice, aud they did so purchase at a sacrl-
fee if they should further believe that the
defendants, or either Of them, in pursuance OF
| such combination, SO acted us to prevent Con-
petition at said sales, or to prevent the SAID
,roprrl; from realizing fair value, then such
| combination aad &c; ion were fraudulent and
void, and the Jury must find for the plaintiff.
The cause was argued before the jury upon
these instructions and the proceedings and
! evidence above mentioned by Judge II. W.
| Thomas Of Fairfax aud John Howard. esq,
for the plaintiff, and by Mr. S. Fc! gu~on Beach
Of Alexandria, for the defendants. But the
Jury, after brief consultations It's was stated IN
| the papers at the time, found verdict for
the plaintiff, ard also verdict for the
rents which had accrued during the, time
of Judge Underwoods occupancy Of the
property No motiun was made FOR a
| 1 i bn ,pI
that the verdict was contrary to the evidence,
or on any other ground, and the court entered
Judgment for McVcigh.
judge Underwood and wife appealed to the
Supreme Court Of Appeals, and that Court
unanimously decided that there was no error
in the proceedings in the court below
Thc Court said that the jury had found
that the whole proceedings OF conflsc;l-
| ton and attachment were fraudulent that no
rcw trial had been asked for upon the
ground that the verdict was contrary to the
evidence, and that if such motion had been
made. the court would have been clearly of
OPTION that the verdict Of the jury was right.
The opinion Of the court was very elaborate
and learned. reviewing all the authorities cited
nv counsel On points discussed in the argument.
We quote from the opinion OF the court:
The sentence Of condemnation and sale was
| nudity; void IN toto. 1t was rendered absolutely
void by the act Of the court in refusing to permit
McN egh TO appear and he heard. Inc authorIlcs
on this point ale overwhelming, and the decisions
of all the tribunals of every country where an en-
lightcned Jurisprudence prevails arc a II one way 1t
lies at the very foundation of justice that every per
son who is to be affected by all adjudication should
have the opportunity of being heard in defence,
| both in repeng the allegations of fact and upon
Lie matter of law and no sentence OF any court is
entitled to the least respect in any other court or
elsewhere when i, has been pronounced &C palc and
| without opportunity of defence An examination
of both sides of The question and deiberation be-
tween the claims end allegations of the contcndug
parties have been deemed essentially necessary TO
The proper administration Of Justice BY all nations
and in every stage Of social existence. A tribunal
which decides without bearing the defendant, or
giving him an opportunity TO be heard, cannot
claim for its DEGREES the weight of judicial sem
tence.
These principles, which form the very found 'tion
of the common law, have been announced by the
ablest and most distinguished jursts maxims of
national justice and universal application By Lord