Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-04-22
Orlando B. TurreN, respondent, Us. George B.
Warren and Charles Har5ert, appellants.
SyTTARIIS


Bidwell VS.. Webb, 10 Mimi, SO, and Bracket
VS.. Gilmore, Is Mimi, PAS, followed on-the
point that mortgage lien upon real property
is not an estate or interest therein within the
meaning of sec. l, chap. Is, general statutes.
A judgment rendered by the circuit court of the
United States for the district of Minnesota,
occupies the same footing as domestic judg
ment Of superior court of record of this
State. Its validity cannot be implicated in
collateral proceeding by parol proof
showing that jurisdiction was
ever in fact acquired over the person of the de-
PENDANT therein. Jurisdiction is conclusively
presumed unless the contrary affrmatively APP
pears upon the face of the record.
! Judgment affirmed.
OPINION.
| The claim interposed by the defendant, War
rem, was that of q mortgage lien, which is not
an estate or interest on land within the mean
ing of sec. l. CHI 65, Gen. St., as it stood prior
to its amendment in 1874 General Laws 1874,
ch. 78). As this action was commenced and
tried under the original statute, it is evident
that this claim presented no proper subject for
| adjudication in this form of action.
Bidwell vs. Webb, 10 Mimi. SO; Brack-
kett Gilmore, Is Mimi. PAS. The
judgment appealed from is therefore correct,
do 70 Qlul, however erroneous aDstfaCtly cOu-
sidered, may have been the rulings of the court
in the exclusion of evidence of which he COM
plains. Conceding that the answer of defendant
Harbert disclosed an adverse claim. estate or in
terest in land proper for determination under
the statute the record before is fairly present
ed the question whether the judgment which
was received in evidence against him was open
to attack by parol proof, showing that the
court in which it was rendered never in fact
acquired any jurisdiction over his person by
service Of process or otherwise, he being at the
time resident and citizen of Pennsylvania
and absent from its jurisdiction. That court
was the circuit court of the United States
holden in and for the district of Mime.
sota-a district territorially identical
with the State. The cause of action upon
r which the judgment was rendered was incon-
, fessedly within the jurisdiction of the court
) under the allegations in the bill of complaint
in respect to the citizenship and residence OF
, the parties. Though limited in the extent OF
its jurisdiction, in respect to the cause of &C.
ton and subjects of which it may take cog
t nizance within such limits, it possesses the
| same general authority that belonged to su.
: perior courts of record at common law and it,
r Judgments and proceedings are entitled to re
' ceive the like favorable Prescriptions and in
: tendments for their support, In no just sens,
s can it be regarded as foreign tribunal, or a
holding the same relation to the government O.
this State as is held hy the courts of sistc
o
: national government, whose constitution il
i alike obligatory upon it and Oh
q own courts, as the supreme law il
! respect to all matters comm,
: within the scope of it's PROVISIONS. In the de
termination of all questions properly brough
before it for adjudication. it must take cogni
e sance and have reference to the laws
f State and federal, that are binding upon tn
t State courts in the disposition Of like question
f presented for their decision.
l. Its judgments rendered in this district ar
t operative throughout the State, and may be en-
i fored by execution anywhere within its boun
: diaries. Every sutton therein feeling aggrieve'
i by any of its decisions or Judgments, may
i without subjecting himself to foreign juris
b diction, obtain relief therefrom if erroneous,
e freely as in the State courts, by direct appli
. cation to the court itsef or by review on erro
t or appeal.
/ No good reason occurs why its judgment
# ought not to be placed on the footin
/ with the domestic judgments of superio
d courts of record of our own State, and treate
h accordingly, and such is undoubtedly the tru
l. rule. Thompson Lee Co., % Iowa. COG
,e 2 Am. Leading Cases, 6l9; Hug hes vs. Daniels
te 8 Md. 271; Town of st. Adams VS.. Bush, VI
3 So; Earl VS.. Raymond, ct al, Mclean, 233.
ID In respect to this class of domesti
is judgments, whenever their validity
is sought to be impeached in any collateral pre-
a. ceeding the better rule in our opinion require
Ac 20 NC ColClusiVeiS III
" less the contrary atfrmatively appears upon tt
I'd face of the record itself.
at Halen VS.. Kelley and Morse, "a CAL, 391.
b. Colt vs.. Hamer, 80 Conn.,, 1875.
81 This accords with the decisions of this cou1
10 in Kipp vs.. Fullerton, Mimi, 473, aud tt
to State cx rel. Brown DcDonald Mss.
s, and we feel no hesitation in adoptin
in it as ''res adjndicated' in his Stat
IN whatever may be the tendency of the decision
N in some other tribunals.
ne This being the case defendants offer VI;
j. properly excluded, for not only did the jud
ment fail to disclose any want of jurisdictio
a over the person of the defendant but the off
a itself conceded that the record was silent upc
C. that subject.
m Judgment confirmed. CORNELL, J.