Source: https://openjurist.org/9/f1d/229
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:16:27+00:00

Document:
is a member or resident in the family." The practical construction of this rule has always been not to extend it to subpamas on bills such as those in the present cases. The practice before referred to has existed while rule 13 has been in force, and has never been understood to be affected by that rule. An order for substituted service on the attorneys will be made, and, in addition, it will be ordered that a copy of the subprena be served on the parties personally, if they can be found, wherever they may be.
HOLMES, Adm'r, etc., v. OREGON & CALIFORNIA. R. Co.
Sidney Dell, for libellant. Dolph, Bronaugh, Dolph, and Simon, for defendants. SAWYER,C. J. On petition for rehearing.. This is an appeal from a decree of the district court, in a suit to recover the sum of $4,900, under section 367 of the Oregon Civil Code, on account of the death of William A. Perkins, which occurred on November 16, 1878, and which is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant while transporting said Perkins across the Wallamet river, at Portland, on its steam-ferry.
OREGON & CALIFORNIA B. CO.
been thorougblyand ably argued and reargued, and I have given it that careful consideration which the importance of the case, and of the principle involved, deserve.
HOLMES 'li. OREGON & CALIFORNIA B. CO.
matter and the parties, the question is whether, on the case before a court, their action is judicial or extrajudicial, with or without authority of law, to render a judgment or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties. If the law confers the power to render a jUdgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction what shall be adjudged or decreed between the parties, and with which is the right of the case, is jUdicial action by hearing and determining it. 12 Pet. 718; 3 Pet. 205. It is a case of judicial cognizance, and the proceeding is judicial. 12 Pet. 623." The court further says: "No other requisites to the jurisdiction of the county court are prescribed than the death of Grignon, the insufficiency of his personal estate to pay his debts, and a representation thereof to the county court where he dwelt, or his reai estate was situate, making these facts to appear to the court. Their decision was the exercise of jurisdiction, which was conferred by therepresentation; for whenever that was before the court, they must hear and determiIie whether it was true or not. It was a subject upon which there might be jUdi. cial action. The record of the county court shows that there was a petition representing some· facts by the administrator, who prayed an order of sale; that the court took these facts which were alleged in the petition into consid. erationand for these and divers other good reasons ordered that he be em· powered to sell." ld. 339. And again, (page 340:) I'The petition in the present case called for a decision of the court that the facts represented did or did not appear to them to be sufficiently proved. They decided that they did so appear, whereby their power was exercised by the authority of the law, and it became their duty to order the sale," etc. * * * .. The granting the license to sell is an adjudication upon all the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, and whether they existed or not is wholly immaterial, if no appeal is taken; the rule is the same whether the law giv'.ls an appeal or not,-if none is ¢ven from the final decree it is conclusive upon all whom it concerns. The record is absolute verity, to contradict which there can be no averment or evidence; the court having power to make the decree, it can be impeached only by fraud in the party who obtains it." And again, quoting Chief Justice Marshall in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 204, 205: "A in its nature concludes the subject in which it is rendered, and pronounces the law of the case. 'fhe jUdgment of a court of record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as a judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive in this court as it is in other courts. It puts an end to all inqUiry into the fact by deciding it." This definition of jurisdiction, and these views, have been reiterated and affirmed over and over again by the supreme court, and I am not aware that they have ever been modified or questioned. See Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 205; U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 709; In re Bogart, 2 Sawy. 401. The doctrine and the case of Grignon's Lessee.
"The petition of the administrator, setting forth that the personal property of the deceased is insufficient to pay such debts, and praying the court for an order of sale, brought the case fully within the jurisdiction of the court. It became a case of judicial cognizance, and the proceedings are judicial. The court has power over the SUbject-matter and the parties."
How did the court get jurisdiction? Not merely by the actual existence of the jurisdictional facts, but by their averment in the petition, and"The court having (by such representation) the right to decide every question which occurs in a cause, whether the decision is correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is binding on every other court. rd. '" ... * This proposition will be found fully discussed at length, and fully decided by us, in (Jrignon's Lessees v. Astor. Any further argument in vindication of them would be superfluous." Id.
"This court, however, held that no other requisites to the jurisdiction of the county court were prescribed by the statute than the death of the intestate, the insufficiency of his personal estate to pay Ilis debts, and a representation of the facts to the county court where he dwelt or his real estate was situated; that the decision of the county court upon the facts was the exercise of jurisdiction which the representation conferred; and that the decision could not be collaterally attacked by reason of them. The court observed in SUbstance '" '" '" that it was sufficient to call its powers into exercise; that the petition stated the fact upon the existence of which the law authorized this sale; that the granting of the license was an adjudication that such facts existed," etc.
"The statute declared that upon the existence of certain facts the sale of the lunatic's estate might be made, and when these appeared in the petition of the guardian. the court had jurisdiction to act, so far as his rights were concerned, as fully as if the statute has so declared in terms, whatever may be the effect of its proceedings upon ihe interests of parties not properly brought before the court." Id. 426.
OREGON & OALIFORNIA. R. 00.
in the exercise of jurisdiction, and is conclusive when brought collaterally before another court. Try the case under consideration by the tests thus repeatedly laid down, and reasserted and reaffirmed over and over again by the supreme court for a period of more than 50 years. Did not the "petitioner present such a case in her petition that on demurrer the court would render judgment in her favor?" There can be but one answer to this question. Then, says the supreme court "it was an undoubted case of jurisdiction." Was the court required to act upon the petition? Then, "any movement of the court" in acting upon it was "the exercise of jurisdiction." The law, as we have seen, required a petition stating the jurisdicWmal facts to be presented to the court, and required the court to act upon it. The proper representation of the fact of inhabitancy in the petition is strictly jurisdictional; the actual existence of the fact, jurisdictional only sub rrwdo. The determination of the truth of the representation depends upon evidence and the exercise of jurisdiction. See Haggart v. Morgan, 5 N. Y. 429. The petition filed in this case represented all the jurisdictional facts. "The decision upon it," says the supreme court, was the exercise of jurisdiction which was conferred by the representation;" for "whenever that was before the court they must determine whether it was true or not." "It was a subject upon which there might be judicial action." The determination and granting letters"Is an adjudication upon all the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, and whether they existed or not is wholly immaterial if no appeal is taken. The rule is the same, whether the law gives an appeal or not. If none is given from the final decree it is conclusive on all whom it may concern. The record is absolute verity, to contradict which there can be no averment or evidence; the court having power to make the decree, it can be impeached only by fraud in the party who obtained it." 2 How. 340.
OREGON & CALIFORNIA R. CO.
HOLMES V,. OREGON &7 CALIFORNIA. R. CO.
tiori a judgment of a court without jurisdiction would be void, and there would be no jeopardy. Repeated indictments and trials in different counties, under the circumstances I have suggested, would be absolutely monstrous; yet evidence may be had at one time cannot be got at another. The proofs may be entirely different on different trials, and the verdict on each trial justified by the evid8nce on that trial, though the verdicts on the several trials may be different. There can be but one safe and logical rule on this point applicable to the class of jurisdictional facts referred to, and that is, where the petition, complaint, bill, or indictment alleges the jurii:ldictional facts, and the court is authorized and required, upon the allegations and proofs, or admissions of the pleadings, to determine the truth of the allegations, it has power to give effect to its determination by its judgment or decree, and, having power to thus determine, adjudge, and decree, its adjudication is conclusive."
HOLMES V. OREGON & CALIFORNIA R. CO.
matter which must be determined at the hearing of the petition, and the judgment of the court thereon, if rendered upon legal notice, cannot be questioned collaterally. It may be reviewed, and, if erroneous, corrected on appeal, but not otherwise." 20 Cal. 313.
HOLMES V. OREGON & CALIFORNIA. R. CO.
" It is coram judice whenever a case is presented which brings this power into action. If the petitioner presents such a case in his petition that on a demurrer the court would render a judgment in his favor, it is an undoubted case of jurisdiction; whether on an answer denying and putting in issue the allegations of the petition, the petitioner makes out a case, is the exercise of jUrisdiction conferred by the filing a petition containing all the requisites, and in the manner required by law."
HOLMES V. OREGON & CALIFORNIA. R. 00.
court is so required to act, is conclusive upon a collateral attack, and I understand the authorities cited in this opinion to sustain that proposition, even though some of the pre-existing facts alleged are of a jurisdictional character. If the line thus indicated in these two classes of decisions is not the true one between disputable and conclusive determinations and adjudications of jurisdictional facts -and there must be some line-then I confess I am not able to say where it should be drawn, and I shall leave it to the supreme court, when· a proper occasion arises, to definitely and sharply locate it. If the line between inconclusive and conclusive adjudications of jurisdictional facts is to be further advanced in the direction of the latter, I shall leave it to that tribunal to make the advance. I certainly shall not be the one to take the first step. If, however, the supreme court should make the advance, I shall obediently follow, but I fear with "unequal," -non passibus tequis,-certainly with reluctant steps. In my judgment the community ought to be entitled to rely with some confidence upon the solemn adjudications of the superior courts of the country, and I, for one, am unwilling to take the lead in judicial action that must, in the nature of things, largely exaggerate that very general lack of confidence in the sanctity, inviolability, and validity of the judicial records of even our superior courts, which it is notorious now so widely prevails, largely depreciating the value of all titles to property resting upon judicial sales and proceedings, at least on this side of the continent. Counsel cites section 766, clause 16, of the Oregon Civil Code, relating to disputable presumptions, as controlling the case. The only observation I have to make upon that provision of the statute is that this is not a case of presumption, but of an actual adjudication of a fact upon proper allegations and proofs-a case of res adjudicata.
I regret that there is no appeal, as the point involved is one that ought to be authoritatively determined, and the question forever set at rest. But the statute expressly limits the recovery in such cases to $5,000, and that sum is, therefore, the utmost amount that can be in controversy. Or. Civ. Code, § 367. Upon the views expressed, the petition for rehearing must be denied, and it is so ordered.
FORSYTH and another v. VAN WINKLE and others.
EJECTMENT-NEW OR SECOND TRIAL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT UNDER THE STATE CIVIL CODE.
In proceedings to recover possession of real property under the Civil Code of Indiana, no one not concluded by the judgment is entitled, under the Code, (section 601,) to have the ju,dgment vacated, and a new trial granted as matter of right, upon payment of costs, etc. Such right is limited to the party against whom the judgment is entered, his heirs, assigns, or representatives. 2. PLEADINGs-LA1'sus CALAMI-JUDGMENT-TEST of-RECORD. Where an amended complaint is filed, hefore answer, against a single defendant in substitution of a complaint originally filed against several defendants, upon which amended complaint trial and judgment arc had, the mere mistaken or careless use of the plural" defendants" in the subsequent pleadings, and in the judgment for costs, does not conclude anyone save the single deto the amended complaint. The judgment is to be tested by the whole record.
McDonald it Butler, for plaintiffs. C. P. Jacobs, for defendants. GRESHAM, D. J. The plaintiffs, Caroline M. Forsyth and Jacob Forsyth, her husband, commenced their action of ejectment in this court on the twenty-fifth of July, 1874, against Sylvaas P. Van Winkle, I¥chard .Robinson, Charles Rose, James Lanagan, and John A. Smale, to recover possession of a large amount of real estate in Lake county, Indiana. Process was duly served on all the fendants.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 § 367
 v.