Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/924

 DAIIiT ». DOS. 917 �rule is that every presumption not inconsistent with the rec- ord 13 to be indulged in favor of their jurisdiction; and their judgment, however erroneous, cannot be questioned when in- introduced coUaterally, unless it be shown affirinatively that they had no jurisdiction of the case." �That the seizure by the officer of the court under its pre- cept is what gives a court of admiralty, or a court proceeding strictly in rem, jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and power to order its sale, is further declared in Miller v. U.S. 11 Wall. 268, 294, et seq. In Ray y. Norseworthy, 23 Wall. 128, it was held that the district court, sitting in bankruptcy, could not order the sale of the bankrupt's naortgaged property, dis- charged of the mortgage, without notice to the mortgagee. But in that case there was no seizure of the thing itself which could operate aS' a constructive notice to ail the world. The court say, (p. 136:) "No man is to be condemned without the opportunity of making a defence, or to have his property taken from him by a judicial sentence without the privilege of showing, if he can, that the pretext for doing it is un- founded. Every person, as this court said in the oaSe of The Mary, 9 Granch, 126, 144, may make himself a party to an admiralty proceeding and appeal from the sentence, but notice of the controversy is neoessary in order to enable him to become a party. Authorities to the same efifect are very numerous; nor is there any well-considered case which gives any sup- port to the proposition that the judgment, order, sentence, or decree of a court, disposing of property subject to conflicting claims, will effect the rights of any one not a party to the pro- ceeding, and who was never in any way notified of the pend- ency of the proceeding." The court does not, in this reference to the case of The Mary, intimate or hold that the seizure in an admiralty case is not in itself constructive notice, or that any notice beyond that is essential to the jurisdiction in pro- ceedings in rem. The cases cited in support of the reasoning of the court clearly point out the distinction between cases in rem and cases in personam, and that, in respect to the lat- ter, notice eithcr personally or by such publication as the law in the particular case declares sufficient, is essential to ����