The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-25

that they rely on the rule n the case O.
Muller VS.. Dows-"
Mr. Petit then suggested that there was
not a state in the union where one could
not fra cars OF the Northern Pacific. Re-
ceivers should be appointed. not where the
cars were but where debts we're 20 be COT
Iecte1 He offered as an ILLUSTRATION the
appcinfment OF receivers IN inx1FailS1
cases and quoted extensively from TIC
books As soors as II appeared 70 court.
he said that there were N Us aisItsA
creditors who had rights 70 be protected.
that court should appoint receivers for the
district. or course. continued Mr.. Pettit.
an Interstate railroad should be operated
IS an entirety. and some one court hscSS~
sarffv had 10 take the lead II the PRO-
ceedlngs when two men rlde the sanae
horse" he said. "one must rice peloEV,
and where more than one court j. caiied
,,tsou 10 administer a vast estate IKE ths
<o~thern Pacific railroad. II Is matter
~ necessity that one court should nave
general jurisdiction II is not race OF
diligence among the courts. for courts III
varfably hold aloof; and u IS mere ina
there arises the rule OF comfy tn@l ~hae
ever is done by the court OF Original }n.,s
diction shall point out the way 'o' '''
other courts TO take"
The Receivers Certificates.
Receiverships IN general arose TN,
within the corporations themselves ST.
a. any one I'D 10 the very day or the ap-
..1s-1.y nen, should inquire of the officers
how the CORPORATION was progressing lhe
answer would be that II was IN goon co,,
d3,ion ard that the debts would all De
,agd promptly little clique rnanipuid.-
ed the affair. the speaker said, nut was :,
proper that their manipulation shonlu
DO away with the jurisdiction or atoea'l
court7 He here referred 70 the issuanc.
~ & 0s0 coo of receivers certificates, ana
the contention made by counsel TOT tis
other side that as those certificates had
been distributed far and wide ana "eie
In the hands OF innocent purchasers the
court should be cautious lest It's ACTON
affect the value Of those certihcates- sir.
Snooner at this point insisted on ASKING
Mr.. Petit II he had not. AZ the request Oh
Mr. Ives become bidder for those GER
,iscates Mr. Ives. answered the attor-
nev had I'm two DAYS raised more IMAM
g 90 OG0 for the purpose Of getting near
ing. but they then learned that the GER
tIaeates had not been confirmed lie hao
supuoeed that Mr. Cromwell was crea-
tura SUFFICIENTLY evolved frcm n state or
nature 10 know that confirmation was
necessary.
II, was with surprise" Mr. Petit ex-
claimed. that I learned that in various
courts along the line no step had been
taken 10 confirm those ceruncates, even
after they HaN UteN sDIE&A eAt ss,A, GO
counsel on the other side has SAID, IN the
hands OF innocent purchasers"
This remark brought Mr.. Spooner 10 his
feet. and he Insisted on being heard be-
cause he did not want any diseredit cast
upon the courts TIE certificates, for
example had been confirmed by Judge
Caldwell Mr.. Petit insisted on knowing
when that confirmation had been made,
and forced his antagonist TO acknowledge
that the step had been taken after the
sale of the certificates. Mr.. Petit then
delivered this blow:
His honor no doubt was at that time
under the impression that he was consid-
ering something else, or he had just been
listening 10 the easy flow of your oily elo-
quence."
The Limits OF Jurisdiction.
This retort caused buzz of comment.
Mr. Petit continued by remarking that he
had been unable 10 find any case which
pronounced a receivers. certificate valid
unless IL had been confirmed by the court
in which the property was situated. The
argument passed 10 the topic Of collateral
attack. and the attorney cited four lead
ing cases TO show that circuit courts Of
the United states We're courts of limited
Jurisdiction only. II a court had no iur-
isdiction. that fact could be shown by
ANYBODY, anywhere and at all times, and
that notwithstanding the fact that Juris-
diction was shown by the court in its own
record Here Mr.. Petit answered the ar
gument of Mr.. Mitchell, made Friday. and
declared that the circuit courts Of the
United States were foreign % one another.
Mr. Mitchell at once arose ana, throwing
down the gauntlet OF half a Goza1 aug hori-
ties. denied the statement. "They are
domestic courts" he insisted
Mr.. Petit. for reply, quoted from Pen
noyer VS. Neff, % L.. s.. "The authority
81
by the territorial limits of the state in
which II is established. Any attempt to
exercise authority beyond those limits
would be deemed by every other forum
as has been stated by this court, an ille
Ultimate assumption OF power and be re.
sisted as mere abuse. The rec
ords OF the judgment IN another state may
be contradicted as 10 the facts necessary
20 give the court jurisdiction. against its
recital % their existence"
II don't know what my friend is talking
about" said Mr.. Petit. HE must have
been reading something else, for I'm the
warmth OF his heart he has extended his
domesucity over the whole United States.
II is perfectly true that where a court has
jurisdiction. that jurisdiction cannot be
collaterally attacked If the circumstances
under which the receivers were appointed
by this court were q misrepresentation.
and this court. under misrepresentation.
appointed those receivers kfGn thiS court
can inquire into the matter. Was the jur-
isdiction ef tho court for the eastern dis
trict Of Wisconsin such as il was repre-
scented To be- Read their answer, and you
VIII find that they say no. TIE allegation
on which the receivers were appointed.
whereby 80 became proper for your court
% appoint three men you had never heard
o. was based Upon statements which they
admit To be false; and now they hunt
around 90 end some other ground on
which TO support their position.
Only II Stub-End I'm Wisconsin.
Take that answer and Interpret il by
the omissions I have pointed out. and BY
thu Eraver omissions they acknowledge.
az the 1S.ooo 30 acres Of land belonging TO
the Northern Pacific. a dominion larger
than some of our states. not one acre is
within that jurisdiction: no foot of the
property. which must he managed as ar
entirety, IS within that Jurisdiction. They
don't pretend that they can 20 over the
eastern district OF Wisconsin wtth a fine
toothcd cemh and fnd anything belonging
20 the Northern Pacific Suppose the
courts IN the Eighth and Ninth circuits
should decree a sale. and the court I'm the
eastern district OF Wisconsin would not
confirm IL, Who would cares Yet they in-
innate that the very rule of comfy Which
they themselves invoke would not be obey
by that court. Who ask. would care
Nothing hut a stub end OF the Northern
Pacific was ever in that state. IL was Moth
Ing hut a tell and that a short one There
is no case In tho hooks where the rule az
comfy IS invoked except where courts
have undouhted jurisdiction and where
there - 10 question hut that the cour;
ought 20 have been the court OF original
jurisdiction. J need not point out ne alb
sfrtttV 81 the RrrHr-erf that court can.