Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/247

 232 FEDERAL REPORTER. �courts, or of the supreme court itself. This point is also settled by the decision of the supreme court of Oregon. Tustin v. Gaunt, 4 Or. 306. The character and dignity of the county court having been thus deflned and established, section 12, of the same article of the constitution, provides that "the county couit shall have the jurisdic- tion pertaining to probate courts," etc., thus conferring, in general terms, upon the county court general jurisdiction over the subject- matter of the estates of deceased persons. In regulating the exercise of this general jurisdiction thus conferred, in pursuanee of the pro- visions of section 1, art. 7, of the constitution before cited, the statute provides that the administration of the estate of an intestate shall be granted by the county court when the intestate, "at or immediately before his death, was an inhabitant of the county, in whatever place he may have died." Or. Civ. Code, §§ 1051, 1052. Section 1060 provides, "in an application * * * for the appointment of an administrator, the petition shall set forth the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction." In this case, as bas been seen, the facts were all properly set forth, and it was distinctly alleged in the petition that the intestate was, "at or immediately before his death, an inhab- itant of Multnomah county. " This averment presented the issue as to inhabitancy to be determined, and the court did in fact determine and adjudge it upon evidence under oath, and its judgment on its face contains the recital : "It being proved by the oath of the peti- tioner, Eiggs, that the said William A. Perkins died on or about the sixteenth day of November, 1878, intestate, in the county of Mult- nomah and state of Oregon, being at or immediately before his death an inhabitant of said county." Can this determination be re-examined in a collateral proceeding, and if found erroneous treated as a nullity, on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction? To resolve this question it rnust be determined what jurisdiction is. The supreme court of the United States bas repeatedly defined jurisdic- tion. In Orignon's Lessees v. Astor, 2 How. 338, the supreme court, quoting from a prier case, says : �" The power to hear and determine a cause is jurisdiction ; it is eoram judice whenever a case is presented which brings this power into action. I£ the petitioner presents such a case in his petition that, on a demurrer, the court would render a judgment in his favor, it is an uridoubted case of jurisdiction. Whether, on an answer denying and putting in issue the allegations of the petition, the petitioner makes out his case, is the exercise of jurisdiction, con- ferred by the filing of a petition containing all the requisites, and in the man- ner required by law. 6 Pet. 709. Any movement by a court is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction ; so, to exercise any judicial power over the subject" ��� �