Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-01-23

the nlaintiff az notice to the Mayor. But it is
enough to say that the law has made the
Maytr, &C., and not the Auditor OF the corpo-
ration, the agent thereof to receive such DO
licc and service Of notice upon him has no
more effect 10 binding the corpora ton than
service On any stranger would have. 10 Miller
vs.. United States IL, Wallace 26S, the seizure
was of stocks in railroad companies IN Michl-
gaD, vas made by giving notice CT the seizure
to The president OF one and vice president ct
the other Of said companies, anu was held to
be good seizure, having been recognized TO
be good by the court in which the proceeding
was had and the judgment OF conhscatlon was
pronounced. But the law OF Michigan pre-
scribed no mode Of seizure Ut the stock OF .
corporation and the court had prescribed none
the mode OF seizure pursued in that case was
reasonable and Sufficient. But even in that
case the seizure was considered insufficient by
the three dissenting judges. The act OF Con-
gross in question is extremely penal IN It's effect,
AID ought, therefore, to be strictly construed,
and a rigid compliance with all its require
meuts ought to be exacted. The means CT de-
ferce which it afforded to those who we're al
fccted by it were exceedingly limited, and the
mode OF giving notice to them was necessarily
very imperfect. 1t is all important, therefore,
that they should have the full benefit OF any
defect in the erpartc proceedings had against
them under that act. The objection goes TO
the want OF jurisdiction in the curt to pro-
nouDcc the judgment complained OF, and II the
objection be ! coed one it makes the judgment
null aud void even 10 Il collateral proceeding.
While Prescriptions are made IN favor OF me
! judgmcn; Of court Of competent jurisdiction
they arc not made in favor OF jurisdiction when
! that is the question in controversy, and espe
| cially is that the case when court whose Jurls
dcton is 10 controversy is one Of limited lurls-
dcton such as is the District aud Circuit
Court of the United States. 1t cannot be pre-
sumcd, therefore, ia favor OF the jurisdiction
| Of the court in this case that the Marshal sez
ed The property described 10 the warrant IN the
mode required by law, and especially can it not
be 50 presumed 10 the face OF his return which
shows that the only mode of seizure vas by
giving notice to r. johnson, Auditor OF the
corporation of Alexandria, which, as We have
seen, was not legal mode Of seizure. Then
tie res 10 this case vas not brought By seizure
within the power and control OF the co'.rt
which rendered the decree OF conhscatlon IN
this case, which decree therefore Is null and
void, and the judgment Of the court below
must, on that ground, be reversed aud annull-
| cd. But the decree OF the District Court Is
void for another reason, and thar IS the plan
tiff in error was deprived, by 4 rule OF the sand
court, Of his legal aud constitutional night to
appear and defend himself in said court against
The charge on which the proceeding to conils-
cate his property as aforesaid was founded.
According 10 he agreed statement OF facts III the
case between March l4th aud April lth, 1864,
an attorney at Iaw appeared before j ohu e..
| l.. Il ot th nj ~
United States Of The district Of Virginia at
Alexandriu, Al COUNSEL, and endeavored to pro-
cure from him 1 reversal Of the decree Of con.
iiscation entered in favor of the United States
against DR.. Orlando fairtax's (thc plaintiff in
This causc) house and lot, situated ON Cameron
street, 10 Tho city oil Alexandria. The judge,
the Hon. John G. Underwood, informed the
Il attorney, from the bench, that he would allow
no appearance Tor any rebel or traitor that
this was the rule Of his court as before that
publicly announced, aud that he had in
every case ordered the appearance OF c3un-
sci Tor, aud the answer ct rebels to be
stricken from the Gles. The records Of three
coniiscation cases tried in the United States
District Court for the district Of Virginia be-
fore the said John G. Underwood as judge,
between March 10th, 1864, and May 18th, 1864,
in which the Uoitel States vas plaintiff aud
Dr. Orlando Fairfax 1.-THE plaintiff in this
causc) was defendant, show that IN each case
the above rule and pracic, Of the court as
proven by said attorney, that l., to allow no
appearance Tor any rebel or traitor, was car
ried out agaiost Dr. Orlando Fairfax, the de-
Icaiait in those causes and the p!alDtlt IN
this, aud that the appearance Of his attorney
aod his answers 10 those three causes tried and
determined between March lGth, 1861, and
May 4th, 1864, were by order OF the said Unit
ed States District Court at Alexandria stricken
from the flies on The ground that said DR.. Or-
laudo Fairfax was within the confederate iln"s
| and rebel.
The Judgment Tor the conGscati0r OF the
stock CT bonds held by Dir: Orlando Fairfax,
and the money due to him thereon BY the city
Of Alexandra, was rendered by the said Dis,
trict Court on the 9TH day Of May, 1864, after
against the same defendant referred to in the
said agreed statement Of facts, in which cases
I his other estate, Ut some Of it, was couliscatci,
and was 10 form Judgment By deIault id the
following words: "Thc papers 10 this cause
having been heretofore returned, the usual
proclamation having been made, the default OF
all persons being duly entered, and due deIb'
Grafton being had 90 the pleadlngs, it is there
upon, on motion of i. II. Chandler, attorney
for the United States. ordered. adjudged, SEN
fenced and dccrced By the court that tho per.
sonal property mentioned and described in the
libel In this cause be, and the same accordingly
| is coniiscated and condemned as forfeited to
the United States" and then followed an
award O! writ of rendltioni ecponas for 4 sale
Of the said property. Whether the Defendant
Fairfax offered to appear and make his defence
ia said case and was refused permission TO do
SO, or rcfrained from doing SO vain thing by
the rule of the court which had just been en-.
forced agans; him in three other confscation
cases, does not appear. No doubt he would
have SO appeared and MA lie his defence in the
said case but for the said rule. It he had SO
appeared and made his defence. and alter
wards, before the hearing Of the case, the APP
pearance and defence had been stricken from
the file, on the ground that he was Il "rebel'
or traitor" there can be no doubt hut that
the judgment afterwards rendered in the case,
as by default, would have been reversed by the
Supreme Court of the pDted States. Ii was
L 4 L.. L.. Al.