Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/920

 .. DAILY V. DOB. 913 �ings agaînst Mm. Where these proceedings are against the person notice is served personally or by publication; where tbey are in rem notice is served upon the thing itself. Tbia is necessarily notice to ail tbose who have any interest in the thing, and is reasonable because it is necessary, and bocause it is the part of common prudence, for ail those who bave any interest in it, to guard that interest by persons -who are in a^ position to protect it. Every person, therefore^ who could assert any title to The Mary bas constructive notice of her seizure, and may fairly be considered as a party to the libol." �In HoUingsworth v. BarboUr, 4 Pet. 474, Mr. Justice Bald- win, delivering the opinion of the supreme court, cites and approves the foUowing, from the opinion given below : "It is an acknowledged general principle that judgments and decrees are binding only on parties and privies. The reason of the rule is founded in the immutable principle of natural justice, that no man's right should be prejudiced by the judgment or decree of a court without an opportunity of defending the right. 'This opportunity is afforded, or supposed in law to be afforded, by a citation or notice to appear actually served, or constructively, by pursuing such means as the law may in special cases regard as equivalent to personal service. The course of proceeding in admiralty causes, and some other cases where the proceeding is strictly in rem, may be supposed to be exceptions to this rule. They are not properly excep- tions. The law regarda the seizure of the thing as construct- ive notice to the whole world; and ail persons concerned in interest are considered as affected by this constructive notice." �In Thompson v. Tolinie, 2 Pet. 157, 163, Mr. Justice Thomp- son says: "The general and well-settled rule of law in such cases is that when the proceedings are coUaterallj' drawn in question, and it appears upon the face of them that the subject- matter was within the jurisdiction of the court, they are void- able only. The errors and irregularities, if any exist, are to be corrected by some direct proceeding, either before the same court, to set them aside, pr in an appellate court. If there ia a total want of jurisdiction the proceedings are void and a mere nuliity, and confer no right and afford no justification, �v.8,no.l5— 58 ����