Page:Borden v. State ex rel. Robinson.pdf/34

552 not the probate court is to be regarded as a superior court within the principles laid down.

We answer emphatically that in our opinion it must be so considered. Because it is not only a court of record, but a constitutional court of fixed and permanent character invested with general jurisdiction and plenary powers over the matters committed by law to its peculiar cognizance and open to review by appeal. There is abundant authority thus to hold as to this court, and if there was not, it would be a matter of serious public concern. Because, while in point of law it is equal, in point of fact it is a more important court to the people of this State than the circuit court. And this will be manifest at once when it is considered that it only requires a period of about forty years to pass every atom of property in the State real and personal and many choses in action through the ordeal of the probate court; while it is estimated that the whole would not be passed through the circuit court in an entire century.

We feel freely warranted therefore, not only on the score of authority, but for cogent reasons of public policy, to fix this court upon the footing of superior courts. 11 ''Serg. & Rawle'', 429. 5 Cranch, 173. 2 Howard S. C. R. 340. 6 Peters R. 220.

Entertaining these views and so holding the law as to the two foregoing questions we have but to say, as to the supposed error in the case before us, that the general and well settled rule of law in such is that when the proceedings of such a court are collaterally drawn in question and it appears on the face of them that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, such proceedings are voidable only although there may be obvious errors, and therefore we can judicially see only what the court has done and not whether it has proceeded in inverso ordine, erroneously, according to the proof before them, or what they have omitted or ought to have done. Voorhees vs. The Bank of the United States, 10 ''Peters. R.'' 476.

The several previous decisions of this court as to the absolute nullity of the judgments of a superior court, when the record fails affirmatively to show previous notice express or implied to