Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/673

 LA VIN V. EMIGEANT INDTJSTEIAL SAVINGS BANK. 665 �be considered a nuUity, and eonsequently did not authorize the seizure and sale of his property." �In BosweU's Lessees v. Otis, 9 How. 360, the same court say : "It may be difficult, in some cases, to draw the Une of juris- diction so as to determine whether the proceedings of a court are void or only erroneous; and in such cases every intend- ment should be favorable to a purchaser at a judioial sale. But the rights of ail parties must be regarded. No principle is more vital to the administration of justice than that no man shall be condemned in his person or property without notice and an opportunity to make his defence." �In Nations v. Johnson, 2e How. 203, the same court say: "Notice to the defendant, actual or constructive, however, ia essential to the jurisdiction of ail courts, and it was held by this court in Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 460, that when a judg- ment is brought coUaterally bef ore the court as evidence it may be shown to be void on its face by want of notice to the per- son against whom it is entered." �So in Bloom v. Burdick, 1 Hill, 139, the supreme court of New York, by Mr. Justice Bronson, say: "The surrogate undoubt- edly acquired jurisdiction of the subjeot-matter, on the pres- entation of the petition and account, but that was not enough. It was also necessary that he should acquire jurisdiction over the persans to be affected by the sale. It is a cardinal principle in the administration of justice that no man can be condemned or divested o: àis right until he bas had the opportunity of being heard. He must, either by serving process, publishing notice, appointing a guardian, or in some other way be brought into court, and if judgment is rendered against him bef ore that is done, the proceeding will be as utterly void as though the court had undertaken to act where thesubject-matterwasnot within its cognizance. This is the rule in relation io ail courts, with only this difference, that the jurisdiction of a superior court will be presumed until the contrary appears, whereas an inf erior court, and those claiming under its author- ity, must show that it had jurisdiction." �In Thompson v. Soinlie, 2 Pet. 169, the supreme court quotes and adopts the following lauguage: "When a court ��� �