Page:Borden v. State ex rel. Robinson.pdf/47

Rh jurisdiction over the subject matter. It was argued by Wilde and Jones as being such and so decided by the court. In Taylor vs. Thompson, 5 Peters 370, no question with regard to the validity of judgments was raised. The case of The United States vs. Aredondo, 6 Pet. 729, related to a grant made by Alexander Ramirez as Intendant of Cuba to certain lands in Florida. The Intendant was vested with discretionary power and his acts under such discretionary power were held valid. So that it will be seen that the only case cited by the court which bore upon the direct question before it was that of Thompson vs. Talmic and was a proceeding in rem.

McPhearson vs. Conliff, 11 S. & R. 429; Perkins vs. Fairfield, 11 Mass. 227; Witer vs. Zane, 3 Ham. 305 and Gregnon's lessee vs. Astor et al. 2 How. 340, are all cases in the probate or county courts for the sale of real estate to satisfy the intestate's debts and were clearly proceedings in rem. In the case in 2 Howard, Lord and Crittenden argued that the county court had jurisdiction to order the sale of the land of an intestate for the payment of debts, and expressly based the right to sell without notice to those interested in the lands upon the ground that it was a proceeding in rem, and so the court decided: because in such cases, in the language of Chief Justice "notice is served upon the thing itself."

So that the decisions of the United States courts, when restricted to the particular cases under consideration may be all true, and yet in no wise controvert the position which I assume, which is, that in proceedings against the person, unless the court has first acquired jurisdiction both of the subject matter and the person, it can render no valid judgment by which either life, liberty, property or reputation can be affected.

If any doubt could arise as to the correctness of the construction I have placed upon these decisions of the United States court, that doubt will at once be removed by reference to a still later decision of that court, (indeed the very latest from that court) in which the question is discussed, and distinctly and clearly settled. It is the case of Boswell's lessee vs. Otis et al.