Iron County register., 1882-12-21
grna Coaaty gegister.
Oectsion of fudge Boyle on Back
Taxes.

In the case ef N. C. Hudson, Collector,
against Miss Ida Heinrichs, in st. Louis last
week, Judge Boyle rendered decree deny
ing the motion to vacate the judgment In ia
vor Of plaintiff. This is one of the cases
which sometimes unfortunately occur in
which the operation Of the law works hard
chip without q remedy. The circumstances
in brief appear to be that Miss Hefnrichs
owned house and lot worth about $S,Ooo,
which was here sole property. BY some ov-
ersight the taxes for 1879, amounting to $3l,
were not paid and Mr.. Hudson fled suit for
their collection. The Sheriff made return
on the summons that the defendant could not
be found, and an order Of publication was
granted. Proof of publication was made,
and defendant not appearing, judgment went
against her by default for the taxes and costs,
amounting to SaI.2S. The property was sold
under execution, realizing 81 ,Oe5. Miss Helm
richs knew nothing Of the proceedings until
her tenant was ordered to turn over to the
purchaser. Motion was then filed to vacate
the Judgment and sale, and the following is
Judge Boyle's decision in the premises:
estate ex rel. Hudson vs.. Heinrichs. The
application to set aside the Judgment entered
In this case must he denied. If 1t be cOnsid-
cred as having been made under the provis-
ions Of Sec. 1854 of the Statutes, it should be
refused because there is no showing made,
nor is 1t claimed that another trial would lead
to q different result. ~ Mo. 343.
"Nor can 1t be supported ny writ OF error,
statute the Court had complete Jurisdiction,
both as to the person of the defendant and the
subject matter OF the action, to render the
Judgment which was rendered. There had
been a return of the Sheriff that defendant
could not be found, and publication had un-
der an order Of the Court, made after 1t was
satisfied process could not he served. Under
the statute, this was sufficient to authorize
the Court to render the judgment. R. S.,
Sec. 3,496l
"In no one Of the.cases cited by counsel 1t Is
held that error c0rdm nobis lies under such
circumstances. There were cases where the
error Of fact shown was that the parties
against whom judgement had been rendered
were such that the Court could not render
Judgment against-such as married women,
infants appearing by attorney and slaves, or
where the record disclosed no notice as the
law required-and it was shown the party
had never in fact appeared. The truth of
the record was not assailed. To show that
summons could have been served does not
show that the Court was not satisfied process
could not be served, or that the Sheriff did
not make return that defendant could not be
found. This return and the order of publica-
ton made by the Court after 1t was so salts
fed were the facts which authorized the
Court to render this judgment. 1t Is not
shown that there was an error of either.
Both may have been predicated on misap-
prehensiOn or mistake. But 1 have been
unable to find any authority tor inquiring
based on sufficient evidence. The Court can
not open awrit Of error, cordm nObts, reverse
its own judgment. e Tidds Pr, 1,137.
Swan, Tenn, p. 1851