Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/260

 HOLMES V. OEEQON & OALIFOBNU B. 00. 245 �vessel within the boundaries of the county over which the court had jurisdiction, to give jurisdiction to the court. The seizure within the county was the jurisdictional fact, and this was an act to be per- formed by the court, or, on its behalf, through the agencies appointed by law. The jurisdictional fact was an act to be performed to get jurisdiction of the thing, in all respects analogous to the service of summons within the state in order to acquire jurisdiction of the per- son, or the levy of an attachaient upon the property in an attach- ment suit in order to get jurisdiction of the property. And this is the class of cases cited as authorities and commented on by the court in Thompson v. Whitman ; and those acts to be performed by or on behalf of the court, in order to acquire jurisdiction of the person or thing, the class of jurisdictional faots that may be questioned collat- erally under this authority and those cited, even though the court must have passed upon those facts. Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 456 D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 172; Harris v. Hardeman, 14 How. 334 Knowles v. Gas-light Go. 19 Wall. 61 ; Pennoyer v. Ne,ff, 95 U. S. 714 and Thompson v. Whitman, are fair examples of this class. So, also, where it is only necessary to compare the record with the law, to see that the record shows a want of jurisdiction on its face, the record is not conclusive. In such cases there is no re-examination of issues of fact determined in the case. Such a case is Ell'wt v. Piersol, cited by the court. Whenever the court undertakes to acquire jurisdiction over parties or things, through the aets of officers or other lawfully-appointed agencies, performed by its authority or on its behalf, it must see that the proper acts have been duly performed; and whether they have been performed or not, under the decision referred to, may be inquired into collateraly. �But there is another class of cases where there is a complete cause of action or proceeding existing, and the parties interested present all the facts — the necessary pre-existing jurisdictional facts, as well as the others constituting the cause of action — by alleging them in a petition, complaint, bill, or, in the case of the state, in an indictment or other proper pleading, and ask an adjudication upon them; and when the opposing party has had due notice by proper proceedings, to acquire jurisdiction 6i the person, the court is required to act upon the allegations and proofs, and determine the facts. The action of the court in determining the facts in such cases, the court having properly performed its part to get jurisdiction of the person oi' the thing, is the exercise of jurisdiction; and the determination and adju- dication up )n the allegations and proofs of the facts upon which tho ��� �