Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/248

 HOLMES V. OBEGON &, CALIFOENIA E. CO. 233 �matter and the parties, the question is whether, on the case before a court, their action is judicial or extrajudicial, with or without authority of law, to render a judgment or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties. If the law confera the power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction what shall be adjudged or decreed between the parties, and with which is the right of the case, is judicial action by hearing and determining it. 12 Pet. 718 ; 3 Pet. 205. It is a case of judicial cognizance, and the proceed- ing is judicial. 12 Pet. 623," �The court f urther says : �"No other requisites to the jurisdiction of the county court are prescribed than the death of Grignon, the insufficiency of bis personal estate to pay his debts, and a representation thereof to the county court where he dwelt, or his real estate was situate, making these facts to appear to the court. Their decision was the exercise of jurisdiction, which was conferred by the represen- tation ; for whenever that was before the court, they must heai: and determine whether it was true or not. It was a subject upon which there might be judi- cial action. The record of the county court shows Ihat there was a petition representing some facts by the administrator, who prayed an order of sale; that the court took these facts which were alleged in the petition into consid- eration and for these and divers other good reasons ordered that he be em- powered to selL" Id. 339. �And again, (page 3e0 :) �" The petition in the present case called for a decision of the court that the facts represented did ordid not appear to them to besufflciently proved. They decided that they did so appear, whereby their power was exercised by the authority of the law, and it became their duty to order the sale," etc. * * * �" The granting the license to sell is an adjudication upon all the facts nec- essary to give jurisdiction, and whether they existed or not is wholly irania- terial, if no appeal is taken; the rule is the same whether the law gives an appeal or not, — if none is given from the final decree it is conclusive upon all whom it concems. The record is absolute verity, to contradict which there can be no averment or evidence; the court having power to make the decree, it can be impeached only by fraud in the party who obtains it." �And again, quoting Chief Justice Marshall in Ex -parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 204, 205 : �"A judgment in its nature concludes the subject in which it is rendered, and pronounces the lawof the case. The judgment of a court of record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as a judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive in this court as it is in other courts. It puis an end to all inquiry into thefaot hy deeiding it." �This definition of jurisdiction, and these views, have been reiter- ated and affirmed over and over again by the supreme court, and I am not aivare that they have ever been modified or questioned. See Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 205; U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 709; In re Bogart, 2 Sawy. 401. The doctrine and the case of Grignon's Lessees ��� �