Case Name: Francis J. Pasteur et al. vs. R. N. Lewis and Wm. Lynd
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1887-01
Citations: 39 La. Ann. 5
Docket Number: No. 9762
Parties: Francis J. Pasteur et al. vs. R. N. Lewis and Wm. Lynd.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 5–14

Head Matter:
No. 9762.
Francis J. Pasteur et al. vs. R. N. Lewis and Wm. Lynd.
Where in a motion for an appeal the return day is left in blank and thejudge on his own mo tion fills up the blank with an illegal return day, the irregularity will not he imputed to the fault of the appellant.
State courts have the right to examine collaterally into the alleged defects of judgment rendered by United States courts of original and limited jurisdiction, when such judgments are made the basis of litigants’ titles But the inquiry must he restricted to an examination to ascertain whether the court which rendered the judgment had jurisdiction and whether it exercised that jurisdiction according to the forms of proceeding established by law.
The inquiry into the facts must he restricted to test the verity of allegations as to domicile or citizenship, necessary to give jurisdiction. "Want of jurisdiction may he shown either as to the subject-matter or the person, or in proceedings m rem as to the thing. 18 "Wallace, 457, Thompson vs. Whitman.
2To inquiry can he made as to the correctness of the judgment upon the merits.
In dealing with such questions, arising out of proceedings instituted under the Act of Congress, providing for the confiscation of property used for insurrectionary purposes, State courts muse be guided by the rules of Common law as expounded by the Supreme Court of the United States, and not by local laws, unless the latter harmonize with Federal jurisprudence.
In a Common law proceeding in rem for the condemnation of property seized under the statute, the monition published is a citation on all interested persons, who are thus made parties to the action — and after a default there is no necessity for a jury trial. 11 Wallace, 303; 20 Wallace, 110. Alien enemies have the right to appear and defend their rights in a court of justice when cited therein'. 93 U. S., 283.
A PPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. • j.1. Houston, J.
J. P. Childress, Merrick & Merrick and Albert Voorhies for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
.Bayne & Denigre for Defendants and Appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
The ground of this motion is that the appeal was made returnable to this Cdirt on the first Monday in June, 1886, a day when the Court was not in session in this city. Tt is charged that the return day was suggested by the appellants' counsel, and therefore that the illegal return day was imputable to the fault of appellants.
The order for the appeal was rendered on the petition of appellants; and from the copy of the petition in the transcript it would appear that the suggestion of the return day was made by the appellants' counsel, since that day is mentioned and written in the body of the petition.
It is, however, denied by the counsel of appellants that such was the fact. They state that the petition for the appeal was prepared and signed by them, but that blanks were left therein for the return day and the amount of the appeal bond, and the return day was fixed by the judge a quo on his own motion, — and this is sworn to. They have further caused the original petition and order of appeal to be brought up to this Court, which fully verify their statement and affidavit. They admit that after the order for the appeal was signed they filled up the blanks in their petition to correspond with the order of the court.
Under these circumstances we do not think that the irregularity charged can be imputed to the fault of the appellants. It was the act of the judge.
The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.