The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-23
Highest of all in Leavening Power-Laes u s. Govt Report
R3H!A!!! R RsklH&

ABSOLUTELY PURE

upon the conditions leading Up 70 the ming
of the creditors bill, saving that the court
for the eastern district of Wisconsin nav
ing once taken jurisdiction, that Jurisdle-
ton, having been continued through TWO
years and having been confessed and ad-
mitted by the attorneys for the company
in their numerous appearances, could not
at this stage be taken away. Counsel lot
the company had indicated that there
might be different degrees OF jurisdiction.
but the Milwaukee court either had 81 hao
not jurisdiction.
Where should the foreclosure bill have
been filed?" asked the attorney. "One po-
sition or the other must be maintained,
that the court for the eastern district OF
Wisconsin had jurisdiction of the bonds
and securities of the whole line. or that II
had jurisdiction of only the bonds and Sc
curities in that district. Ii must be as
scented that the court first taking jurisdlc-
ton had il extended over the whole line
We are asked TO say that the Farmers
Loan and Trust Company should have
weighed in the scales the question whether
the securities were here or there.
1--WE come TO another question IT is al
legged that the order of appointment of the
receivers should be vacated because OF no
jurisdiction. That is either a collateral
attack on the jurisdiction Of the Milwau-
kee court or il is a reputation by the
Northern Pacific of well-settled principles
OF comfy
Mr. Flanders enlarged upon the PROPOSE
ton that a portion of the land grant OF
the road being in the western district of
Wisconsin, that fact alone under the
statute gave Jurisdiction 10 the court for
the eastern district. the two districts being
within the same state.
Who Is to Judge of Jurisdiction.
Ex-senator Dolph, OF counsel for COM
s1lq ut pndpa VnreG
show that the circuit court for the east
ern district OF Wisconsin had jurisdiction
on several grounds, and that II there was
any question about it the Washington
court would not try that question. lie
said.
The Wisconsin court had jurisdiction
10 determine its own jurisdiction. and its
Determination OF that question is as con-
elusive when attacked cellaterally as its
determination of any other question.
When a circuit court of the United States
has. assumed jurisdiction its judgments
cannot be assailed eollaterally. although
the record does not show iurisdictional
facts"
The rule of comfy. said Mr.. Dolph,
was so well established that there was
little need to say anything concerning 1t.
He cited the case OF Dillon VS.. the Oregon
Short Line. in which Judge Gilbert had
RENTED the parties for relief to the court
of original jurisdiction. There was an
other ground upon which the jurisdiction
of the Wisconsin court was clearly main
tainable. The court had jurisdiction be-
cause as a court of primary jurisdiction
in the creditors suit ii had property Of
the defendant subject 10 the mortgage.
All the parties to the foreclosure suit were
before the court as parties to the credit
ors' suit. and as all the property of de-
PENDANT was in the possession of the re-
ceivers and in the custody of the court.
the rights of the parties thereto could not
be determined by any other court with
out conflict of jurisdiction. If the COM
plainant had in the first instance gone to
any other court, it would have been sent
to the court of primary jurisdiction, and
would have been guilty of contempt Of
that court.
At 5:15 Mr.. Dolph had not finished, and
a recess was taken until 10 O'Clock this
morning.