The Forrest City times. [volume] (Forrest City, Ark.) 1871-1919, 1901-10-25
Collateral Attacks on Judgment.
yorror FORREST CI1r TINS

EJIr0H FORREST CITY ItAkS
Permit me to say. through the columns
Of your paper, that il is msiter Of very
great surpri.e to me that so;ne lawyers Of
high reputation are still Of opinion that
collateral attack eau no, be made upon
Judgment.
They cling tenseiously to this opinion
aid 6gh, for It CD all occasions, notwith-
s.anding the fact that the Supreme Court
II the United States, 10 q long line Of de
.sions, extending back for more than
CENTURY. has sustained collateral attacks
when The court which rendered the igdg-
.lent had no jurisdiction OF the subjee,
Z after OF the person. OF the defendant.
In the sass Of Williamson IS. Berry, S
Howard ie5. the former decisions OF tbs
.oart on this poIn, are eollsied, and The
@oari said:
1t isa well settled rule that the juFis-
diciion Of any court exercising authority
oseT subject may be inquired into IN
4~sry other court when the proceedings
~ the former are relied upon aud brought
before the latter by party claiming the
benefit .: such proceedings.
The case of Gslpin vs.. Page. IS Wa
lace $50, was an action In the Z. $. Cir
gIt Court for possession Of certain real
property in San francisco. TIE defend
aot claimed title under purchaser who
lad bought under decree Of sale made
~ the State District Court. The PLAIN
If denied the validity of that decree
Defendant said the decree could no; De
soliaterally attacked. Il was battle
royal. The L. s. Circuit Court sustained
tle contention Of defendant. and said:
The record Is here attacked collaier.
ally, and not or appeal, or IN q direct pro-
seeding of any kind to reverse, SCI aside.
=. yscale the decree
But tie l. g Supreme Court sustained
.-s contention Q; the plaintiff IN a power
III opinion delivered b. Judge Field. and
Ia subsequent eases. reported in Is Wal
ACE 457: q L ;. "a. and IS L. ). ia.
). vas thoroughly established that Want
= iurisdie,isn may De shown. either a. 10
.4e subject matter. or n ra-.ot, n, il.
..cceeiiugs IN rem, a TO the tssag."
No sppeal IS necessary from q Judgment
AT is void foi WAIT OF Jurisdiction.
Tie Supryrn. Csurt ~ .rk.,s,s -
-.
&c = - 80 - .C''oA ti.e
.eediu<s are necessary Ia a,oId !; /.
/ IDS nobody. ST Ark 40
Wan, Of isTisc c.iou may always D.
20. Up ssains. Judgment sought 10 oe
-. 80 -e-s = Ga ''heo
.na S. -.
-.
.,s. ;.a.
j. or j. F.. valid .g.ju,t ea...f.rsI az
tack -
L Was decided to be void because the
Probate Court lad exceeded It's jurisd.c.
i. n as 10 Tie subjee, matter.-55 Ark 500.
IGe Supreme Court Of New YORK has
also said:
= The principle that. record cannot h..
irpeached by pleading is not applicab.r
~ - sie'e i "ah' OF Jurisdictions. The
uqaysil.t- far sny u,.,' 1,'e''y so'd a''C
Q. Jurisdiction Is a matter that may always
b sci up against Judgment when il i,
oe .n i'', OF "hen any benefit Is
:, - -, -"
,....t4 -. - ''e
IAN t. - - az . ''ea' >
t,saot paanora... :. ~ ~ 49, - tax
~. - D -
- ,'',' ,o'e"' i" '"e O'fc"''
,.o,,a,'a. -, = -. .''s- 0'A''' " ven 'sa'i's'
~ - :, '''' VI " . nc
s-..a,.. i, -. VI wv
M o,.;n,as -, 49, = -
g. lin, -. a.. - fH','.' 'ss1 u
,ess. -. pa. - 80 =" u ''eh -
- s.I, 'A'',.,1 ne y vi ue
evsc,,,on 49,, 4'''''' 81
M ,a,.a..., ., - -. - -, - @'''s
C5,nri, to,,,, =, ,,..I.., >'''e
,.,;o, ,,h..a,r :" "''
y