Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1876-12-27
The UnderwOo '-NcVeigh Case.
sUpKEME COURT OF II UNITED STATES.
"A US-O October Term, 1876.

/ \ scn,ercc Of "a court pronounced against
i trar!v wi. hout hearing him, or giving Nun
AN opporI unity to ye heard. is DOT a ]uIlciai
j. termination ot his rights. aud - not enlitl:u
10 respect in any other tr'buual.
> in, Jurisdiction acquired by the seizure oil
pr,uer;y ia a proceeding III rem Tor Its condem
nation Tor alleged forfeiture is not 10 pass upon
rhr question of forfeiture absolutely, but to
mass upou thal QUESTION after opportunity has
,,.en afforded to Its owner aud parties i%oterest'
ed +, aupcar and be heard upon the CHARGES
for which the forfeiture Is claimed. 10 tnat
end sumo ratification OF the proceedings De-
yond that arising from the seizure, prescribing
the time within which the appearance must 0e
made, ls essential.
3. 10 proceedings before the district court
ia a coufscatioD cas-, uomloallon aLo nouoe
were Issued and published. but the appearance
of the owners for which they called, when
made vas stricken GU, his right to appear
being denied by the court Held, that the sub
scnnept seu,euca of con6scauon Of his property
was AZ lnopera,ive upon his rights as though
no mooitioD or Dotice had ever Deen Issued.
The legal Effect of strikiog out his appearance
was to recalls the muuitiou aud notice as to MN.
4. The doct!iue that where a court has ouce
acquired jurisdiction i; has a right to declde
| every question which arises 10 the cause, auu
its Judgment, however erroneous, cannot De
| co!lateraiiy aSsailed, is only correct Wheo the
| court proceeds, alter acqulrlog Jurlsulc'loo OF
| the cause, according 10 the established MODES
royerning the class to which the case belongs,
and does Dot transcend 10 the extent or obarac
ter of its judgement the law which Is appl'
cable t. II.
MIR. Justice Field delivered the opinion OF the
Court.
This was au action OF tj"ctmeut to recover
certain real property In the city OF alexandria,
10 the State of Virginia. 1t was brought 10
| the corporation court o. that city, aud a VIII
of error from the count OF appeals OF the state
TO review the judgment obtained having been
| refused, the case was brought here directly DS
a writ Of error from this court. Authority for
this mode Of procedure will be found stated 10
The case of Gregory VS.. McVeigh, reported 10
| the 23d of Wallace.
The plaintiff 10 the corporation court proved
title in himself to the premise, 10 controversy,
and consequent right to their immediate pos
session, unless his Interstate 10 them had been
Invested by a sale under a decree 0! condemua-
| ton rendered in March, 1864, by the District
Court of the United States Tor the Eastern
District OF Virginia, upon proceedings for Their
conhscation. The defendant relied upon the
deed TO bis erautor executed by the marshal OF
the district upon such sale. +.
The proceedings mentioned were instituted
urder the act of Congress of July II, 1862,
''to SUPPRESS lnsurrectl0n, to publish treason
aud rebellion, to SEIZE and confscate the prop
erty of rebels, and Tor other purposes.
10 July, 1868, the premises 10 controversy
were seized by the marshal of the district by
order OF the district attorney, acting under lu-
structions from the Attorney General. La Au
gust following, a libel OF Information against
the property WAS filed 10 the name OF tie
Uuited States, setting forth that the plaintiff
in the case was the owner OF the properly III
question; that he had, since the passage OF the
above act, held an Office Of honor aud trust
under the goveromeot of the so called CoDtcd-
crate States, and 10 vari us ways had given
aid and comfort to the rebellion; that the pop
erty had been seiz.d in pursuance OF the act III
compliance with Instructions trom the Attorney
General, and ty reason Of the premises, was
| forfeited to he u. 5. and should Oe Condemned.
1t closed with a prayer that proccssot moDltlou
might issue against the owner or owoers OF the
property aud all persous Interested or claiming
an interest therein, warning them at some early
day ito appear aud answer the libel; and as
the owner of the property was a non' resident
and absent, that an order of publication 10 the
u,ual form be also made. Upon this libel the
district Judge ordered process Of monltlou to
issue as prayed, and designated dag aud place
for the trial OF the cause, and that notice OF the
same with the substance of the libel should be
q ven by publication in a newspaper of the city,
and by posting at the door of the court house.
b. process of monition and notice we're &C.
cordioeiy issued and published. Both described
the land and mentioned its seizure aud named
the day and place fixed Tor the trial. The mo-
nition stated that at the trial all persons inter-
ested 10 the land or claiming 40 interest might
appear and make their allegations 10 that be-
half" The uotice warzed ali persons to ap
pear at the trial ITO show couse why condem-
nation should not be decrced aud to intervene
for their Interest"
The owner of the property, in response to
the monitiop and notice, appeared by couosel
aud filed a claim to the property and an answer
to the libel. Subsequently, 90 the 10Th OF
March, 1864, the district attorney moved that
tue claim aud answer and the appearance OF
the respondent by COUNSEL be stricken from the
flies, on the ground that it appeared from his
answer that be was at the time OF filing the
same "a resident within the city of Richmond,
within the Confederate lines aud a rebel" o.
the SINE day the motion was granted, and the
| Cldlu u duS"Sl oiuSISu W W
the flies. The appearance of the respondent
was by his answer. The court Immediately en-
tered its sentence aud decree. condcmning the
property as forfeited to the United States, re-
citing that the usual proclamation having been
made, the default of all persons had beeu duly
entered. The decree ordered the issue of a
ueuditioni erponos for the sale Of the property,
reluruabIe on The 10th day Of the following
April. At the sale uuder this writ, the grant
or of the defendant became the purchaser.
The question tor determination is whether
the decree OF condemnation thus rendered,
without allowing the owner Of the property 10
appear 10 response to the mooition, iuterpose
his claim for the property, and answer the libel
was of any validity. 10 other words, the question
is whether the property Of the plaintiff could
be forfeited by the %s,nteLce of the court 10 a
judicial proceeding to which be was not allowed
10 appear and make ausw4r to the charges
against him, upon the allegation Of which the
forfeiture was demanded.
~,