Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1876-12-27

to have 10 blodIng Obligation upon the rights
or properly OF the subjects OF other nalions, for
it tramples under loot ali the doctriucs of in-
ternational law, aud is but a solemn fraud, If
it is clothed with all the forms Of a judicial
proceeding"
ln Another part Of the sam opinion the
judge characterized such sentences las mere
mcekeries, and as In Do just sense judicial pro.
ceedlngs;' and declared that they ought to
be deemed, both exc dtrecto In rem and cvlIate-
rally. to DC uIcre al library euicls or substantial
frauds"
This language, it is true, is used with re-
spect 10 proceedings in rem IF a ioreigu court,
but 1t Is equally applicable and pertinent 10
proceedings 10 rem of a domestic court, when
they are taken Without auy mopitiou or public
notice TO the parties. 10 Woodruff vs.. Taylor,
the subject OF proceedings in rem 10 our courts
IS cla6orately considered by the Supreme Court
OF Vermont. After stating that in such cases
notlce Is given to the whole world, but that
from Its nature it Is to the greater part Of the
world constructive only, and mentioning the
manner 10 which such notice is given 10 cases
Of seizure Tor violation of the revenue laws, by
publication of the substance OF the libel with
the order OF the court thereon specifying the
time ard place of trial, and by proclamation
Tor all persons Interested to appear and contest
the forfeiture claimed, the court observed, that
II every court and in all countries where judg
mcalS W re rGspcc cd, notice OF some kind was
given, aud that it was Just az material 10 the
validity OF 4 lulgm nj IN rem that CONSTRUCTIVE
Il tlcc at least should appear 10 have been
glveu az that actual nutlce should appear be-
fore the record Of Il judgment IN personam
"A prUccedlug,' Couluued the court, pro
ttssIUg TO determine the right of property,
where no Ou!lCe, written or Constructive, Is
given, W! a!evur else il might b. called, would
not be cutilled to be GlynIhad with the uamc
Of a judicial proceeding. 1t would be u mere
arbitrary edIct not to be regard, d anywhere as
the judgment OF a court
in the proceedings hef,r the district court in
the conhscat!on case, m lniti n and notice, rs
already stated, were issued and published, but
the appearance of this owner, for which they
called, having been refused, the subsequent
sentence OF confscatlOn OF his property Was BE
imperative upon his rights rs though no moni.
ton or motto hal ever been issued The legal
effect Of striking on! his appearance WAS to le-
Cali the inouItlon and notice rs to him. His
position with reference to subsequent proceed
lngs was then not unlike that OIL & party in q
personal action after the service made upon him
has been set aside. \ service set aside Is never
service 5y which judgment in the action can
be upheld.
The doctrine invoI ed by counsel. that where
q court has once acquired jurisdiction IL has II
right To decide every question which arises IN
thu csuse, and it: judgment, however erroneous,
c.nno! ba colla.eraliy ASA led, Is undoubtedly
correct " Il general prUposltlOn, but ike all
general propositions, is subject TO many qusiih
cstions in its apple alton. All courts, even the
highest, are more vt less limited in their jurls.
d"iction; they are limited to particular classes Of
actions, SUCH rs civil or criminal or to partlcu-
!ar modes Of administering relief, such rs legal
or 4 rpit h1o .. ~ fn "a cupii1n nf a SnaaIAl Ohm
racter, such rs arise on navigable Waters, or re-
late to the testamentsry disposition of estates ;
or to the use Of particular process IN the enforce
ment Of these judgments. Though the court
may possess jurisdiction OF \ Gauss, OF the sub
iect matter and OF the parties. IL is still limited
in lis modes of procedure and in the extent end
character OF its Judgments. 1t must act ju Ill
cia ~ in ell things and cannot than transcend
the power conf .rred by the Law. Il, for in
stance, the action be upon y money demand,
the court, Notwithstanding its complete jurisdlc.
.ioa over The subject and parties. has no power
! TO PASS III igment Il Imprisonment IN the peni
Tertiary upon the defendant. If the action be
for a libel or personal tort, the court cannot Or
der III the case q spec nc performances OF Il con-
trsct. if the action be- for the possession oi reai
property, the curt is powerlt IS to submit in the
case the probate of 3 will. Instances Of this
kind show that the general doctrine stated by
counsel is subject to many quailccaLlgns. Inc
judgments mo toned. givun in the Gases sup
! pO6COY "Noiu ~ w WV S0-
, would be absolutely void, because the court in
rendering them would transcend the limits OF
its authority in those cases 81 it was hold by
this court in Bise:Dw vs.. Forrest - Wallace,
35l,J th 1t u judgment in u confscatloa CTS, CON
dulnning the tee f the property WAS void for
the reminder after Lhe termination Of the life
estate OF thu owner. To the objection thst the
decree WAS conclusive that the entire fe rs
contscated, sir. Justice Strong, speaking the
u unanimous opinion of the court, reni!ed -
doubtless, y decree OF II court having llrisdic-
tior to make the decree cannot be lmpeachtd
colIaterslly but under tbs set of Congress, the
d strict court had no power to orde. u Sale
which should confer upon the purchaser rights
Outlssting the life OF French Forrest me own
e9) had it done so, It woul6 have transcribed
its jurisdiction.
80 u departure from established modes of pro
cedure will often render the Judgment void (;
thus, the sentence of y person charged with f"l-
ony, upon conviction by the court, without the
inter vention of q Jury, would De invalid fJr any
purpose. The decree of a court OF equity upon
oral allegations, without written pleadings,
would be IN idle act, OF no force beyond that OF
an advisory proceeding of the chancellor. AND
the reason is that the courts ale not authorized
to exert their power iii that way.
The doctrine stated by counsel is only correct
when the court proceeds, after acquiring Juris-
diction Of the cause, according to The establish
ed modes governing the Class to which the case
belongs. and does not transcend IN the extent or
!, character of its judgment the law which is APP
plicabIe to it. The statement Of the doctrine by
Mr. Justice Swsyne in the case OF Cornell vs..
Williams, reported in the ooh of Wallace, Is
mere accurate. "Ihe Jurisdiction" says the
Justice. having attached in tt e case, everything
done within tie pouer Of Mat Jurisdiction, when
coliaterally questIoaed, Is neid conclusive oi
the rights of the parties unless impesched for
fraud"
Il was no. within the power of the Jurisdiction
of thn district rolIrt IN prorAGI with tn. cnEt. 80
rs 10 affect tho rights Of the owner alter his np.
p~ehrance had been stricken out, and the benefit
of the citation to him thus denied. For jurls
dictlon 5 tho right to hear and determine; not
to determine without hearing. And where, MS
IN lha. casc, no appearance WAS allowed, there
could be no hearing or opportunity OF being
heard, and, therefore. could be no exercise OF
jurisdiction. BY the act OF the court, the re-
spondeut wss excluded fcom its Jurisdiction.
The udgGneAt Of the corporation court Is al