Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

as a legal tender, will be accepted in payment of the amount due.'
And it must be paid to the person and in the manner prescribed
by the statute under which the redemption is made.2
tions are alleged to have been false and chaser and his grantee to redeem the
fraudulent. Repairs being required on land. Tarkington v. Conley, 59 Iowa 28.
the premises, B was let into partial pos- 1. Dougherty v. Postgate, 3 Iowa
session and made repairs, which, by 92; Rorer on Judicial Sales, Š 1181;
agreement, were to be included in the Lytle v. Etherly, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 389;
debt. Subsequently the lot was sold People v. Mayhew, 26 Cal. 655.
under the mortgage without relief from The holder of a sheriff's certificate of
valuation or appraisement laws, al- purchase of real estate sold on execution
though the mortgage did not authorize cannot defeat a redemption in a case
this, and the property was purchased where the clerk receives in good faith
by B, who had been let into full posses- the amount necessary to redeem in
sion and who now claims to hold an ab- bank notes, deposits them in bank and
solute title to the property, although the has continuously, from the time of the
time for redemption has not yet expired. receipt, lawful money ready for the
It is alleged that the rents and profits holder of the certificate, which he is
since the property has been in posses- willing to deliver, and does tender, to
sion of B, have more than paid both him; and where such facts appear in
debts, interest and repairs. A offered the complaint, in an action to set aside
to pay any balance due on an account the sheriff's deed executed after such
being taken, and demands judgment for redemption, and to quiet title to the
any excess of payment and possession land, the complaint is sufficient on de-
of the property. Held, that the com- murrer. Boyd v. Olvey, 82 Ind. 294.
plaint contains a good cause of action. See also Webb v. Watson, 18 Iowa
Scheffermeyer v. Schaper, 97 Ind. 70. 537; Hall v. Fisher, 9 Barh. (N. Y.) 17;
See also Felton v. Smith, 84 Ind. 485. Buford v. Henzier, 8 Biss. (U. S.) 177

In another recent case, arising in Iili. But compare People v. Hays, 4 Cal. 127;
nois, it appeared that land was sold on People v. Baker, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 602.
execution, at a grossly inadequate price, 2. In some States it may be paid to
and bid in by one who was the family the officer who made the sale. Elkin
physician of the debtor, and regarded v. People, 3 Scam. (111.) 207; People v.
as an intimate friend and advisor, the Baker, 20 Wend. (N. Y.; 602.
debtor being an aged, illiterate person, others to the clerk of the court. Webb
almost wholly ignorant of his legal v. Watson, 18 Iowa 537. In others it
rights. The purchaser promised to give is sufficient to offer to credit the debtor
the debter all the time he wanted to re- with the amount where the creditor re-
deem, telling him he had fifteen months deems. Moore v. Gore, 35 Ala. 701.
in which to redeem, and by artifice and See also Elkin v. People, 3 Scam. (ill.)
misrepresentation lulled him into a 207; s. C., 36 Am. Dec. 541, and note;
sense of security until the time of re- Freeman on Executions, 9 318.
demption had passed, with the knowl- The holder of the certificate of sale,
edge and participation of the assignee of and not the assignee of the judgment, is
the certificate of purchase, to whom a entitled to the redemption money.
sherift"s deed was made. It was held, that Brown v'. Harrison, 93 Ind. 142.
the debtor, under these circumstances, A, B and C, in consecutive order of
was entitled, on bill in equity, to redeem time, obtained judgments against D,
from the sale, and have the sheriff's deed which became liens on the debtor's real
set aside as a cloud on his title. Palmer estate. A's judgment was satisfied by
v'. Douglas et al., 107 Ill. 204. See also sheriff's sale of the real estate to A,
Fletcher v. McGill, no Ind. 395. and B, within the proper time, redeemed

But where a purchaser at an execu- by virtue of his judgment, paying the tion sale, after the sale, offered to con- proper sum to the clerk, which the vey to the execution debtor the land clerk, upon demand, paid to A as for such purchased, upon being paid a certain redemption. B's judgment was af. amount within a certain time, which terwards reversed for error, and reamount the debtor agreed to pay within manded, and another trial resulted in the time named, if he could raise it, but another judgment in his favor. B then failed to perform on his part, it was brought suit against A, C, D, and the held, that these facts would not support sheriff, alleging these facts, and that D an action by the debtor against the pur- still owned the land, and was otherwise

In

[ocr errors]

4. Effect of Redemption.—“The effect of redemption from execution sale by the execution debtor, or his assigns or grantee, is merely to terminate the sale and restore the property to its original condition. It confers no new right."! But a judgment creditor who redeems is said to be substituted to the rights of the purchaser.2

JUNK-SHOP.-A place where odds and ends are purchased and sold.3

insolvent. Held, that the complaint S, and W, by deed of quitclaim, con-
as against C and D was good on de. veyed to the appellant. The plaintiff*
murrer. Held, also, that A, having ac- finally obtained a sheriff's deed upon
cepted the redemption money, waived sale to satisfy its mortgage, and brought
any irregularity in the redemption, and this suit for possession.
that Can D could not question the Held, that the transaction between
regularity of the redemption. Held, W & S and H was in equity a redemp-
also, under the Indiana Redemption act tion of the property from the sale upon
of 1879, that a judgment upon the facts the judgment, and a payment by them
stated in the complaint for costs against of the judgment, and that the paper
C and D, and that the plaintiff have ex- title acquired by them, under the cir-
ecution on the original judgment in cumstances, could not be interposed
favor of A, was not erroneous. Carver against the plaintiff. Shanklin
v. Howard, 92 Ind. 173.

Franklin Life Ins. Co., 77 Ind. 268.
Under the Indiana redemption law The owner of land sold under ex-
of March 31st, 1879 (acts 1879, p. 176), ecution may redeem it without paying
the owner of land sold by the sheriff, at the taxes paid on it by the purchaser
the time of the sale, may redeem the since his purchase. They are no part
land from such sheriff's sale, but the of "the lawful charges” required by the
statute does not give such owner any statute. The purchaser's remedy for
lien upon the land for the amount of them is by action at law. Fuller ?'.
money paid by him in such redemption. Evatt, 42 Årk. 230.
Groves v. Barber, 98 Ind. 309.

1. Rorer on Judicial Sales, $ 1194. Where a judgment debtor has a See also Stein v. Chambless, 18 Iowa naked right to redeem certain real 474; Titus 2. Lewis, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) estate, by the payment of a certain sum 70; State v. Sherill, 34 Ind. 57; Taggart of money, the lien of the judgment, if v. McKinsey, 85 Ind. 392; Bodine r'. any, on such right to redeem, will not Moore, 18 N. Y. 347; Warren v. Fish, entitle the judgment plaintiff to demand 7 Minn. 432. from the owner of the fee, in such real 2. Rorer on Judicial Sales, § 1195; estate, an accounting for rents and Freeman on Executions, 321. See profits thereof. Wilhelm v. Humphries, also and compare Clayton 2”. Ellis, 50

Iowa 590; Allen v. McGaughey 31 The plaintiff had a suit pending to Ark. 252; Settlemire v. Newsome, 10 foreclose a mortgage on real estate on Oreg. 446; Fischer v. Eslaman, 68 which A had a junior lien by judgment. Ill. 78; Rice V. Puett, 81 Ind. 230; A valid agreement was made between Eldridge v. Wright, 55 Cal. 531. the debtor and W & S by which W & Authorities for Judicial Sales.-Rorer S undertook to pay the judgment, on Judicial Sales; Herman on ExecuWhereupon the plaintiff dismissed its tions; Freeman on Executions; Freesuit as against A. Execution man on Void Judicial Sales; and for

judgment, upon which particular branches of the subject, see H purchased the property. satisfying Jones on Mortgages and the various text the judgment and taking a certific books on Executors and Administrators, cate of purchase, and then W & Guardian and Ward, and Trusts and S paid hi:n what he had bid, and there. Trustees, besides valuable notes in after he held the certificate as their many of the American Decisions. trustee and to indemnify himself as 3. A store where old metals, ropes, their surety on another matter. At the rags, etc., are bought and sold, is a proper time he received a sheriff's deed, junk-shop, within the meaning of a and then, having been released as surety, licence act. City Council of Charleston he conveyed to W, with the consent of v. Goldsmith, 12 Rich. (S. Car.) 470.

97 Ind. 520.

was

issued on

[ocr errors]

JURISDICTION.1 1. Definition, 244.

(d) United States and State 2. Various Kinds of Jurisdiction, with

Courts, 295
Definitions Thereof, 251.

(e) States with Boundary Riv. 3. Constitutional Limitations as to

ers, 296. Jurisdiction, 252.

9. Incidental Jurisdiction ; Terms of (a) Jurisdiction of the Judicial Court; see also Contempt of Over the Executive Depart.

Court. Courts, 296. ment, 253,

10. Jurisdiction Acquired by Consent, (6) Jurisdiction of the Judicial 299. Over the Legislative De

(a) Over Persons, 299. partment,and Over Political (b) Over Subject Matter, 301. Questions, 257:

(c) Only Given to Judicial Tri(c) Jurisdiction of the Legisla

bunals, 303
tive Over the Executive and 11. Jurisdiction Taken Away, 303.
Fudicial Departments, 258.

(a) Generally, 303. 4. Superior or Inferior Courts

(b) By Statute, 303. Courts of General and Limited

(c) By Consent, 305, Jurisdiction, 265.

(d) By Subsequent Events, 305. (a) Superior Courts, 267. 12. Jurisdiction Enquired Into, 306. (b) Inferior Courts, 268.

(a) When, 306. (c) Fustices' Courts, 270.

(0) By What Court, 307. 5. Presumption as to Jurisdiction, 270. (c) In What Manner, 309. (a) Of Superior Courts, 271.

(1) Motion to Dismiss, 309. (6) Of Inferior Courts, 274.

(2) Demurrer, 309. (c) Of Superior Courts Exer

(3) Plea, 309. cising Special Statutory

(4) Motion to Vacate JudgPowers, 275

ment, 310. 6. Jurisdiction Determined by Value,

(5) Certiorari. See Certio283.

rari, 310. (a) Courts of Original Juris

(6) Prohibition, See Prohidiction, 283

bition, 311. (6) Courts of Appellate Juris

(8) Habeas Corpus. See diction, 287.

Habeas Corpus, 311. 7. Exclusive Jurisdiction, 290.

13. Effect of Acting Without Jurisdic8. Concurrent Jurisdiction, 292. (a) Generally, 292

(a) Generally, 311.
(6) Law and Equity Courts, 293 (b) Illegal Courts, 312.

(c) Jurisdiction in Rem, 295. 14. Special Phrases Construed, 314. 1. Definition.— Jurisdiction is the authority by which judicial 1. Note as to Cross References.—This HABEAS CORPUS; NONRESIDENTS; article discusses only such general PARTITION ; PARTNERSHIP ;

Quo principles affecting the question of WARRANTO; RECEIVERS; SUMMARY jurisdiction as can properly be treated PROCEEDINGS; Trusts, etc. etc. separately, and as are stated in the Jurisdiction Over Specific Persons.analysis. For the convenience of the See CONSULS

AMBASSADORS; reader the following table of cross EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; references is here given:

GUARDIAN AND WARD; HABEAS Jurisdiction of Respective Tribunals Corpus; PARTNERSHIP; RECEIVERS and Public Officers.-See ADMIRALTY; AND TRISTS, etc. etc. APPEAL; ARBITRATION ; BANK- Jurisdiction in Rem.—See CRIMINAL RUPTCY; CONSULS AND AMBASSA- PROCEDURE; EJECTMENT; EQUITY; DORS; Courts; CRIMINAL PROCE- FOREIGN ATTACHMENT; PARTITION, DURE; DEBTSOF DECEDENTS; EQUITY; etc. etc. ERROR, WriT OF; JUSTICE OF THE Jurisdiction in Personam.-See CRIMPEACE; MILITARY LAW (for Courts INAL PROCEDURE; EQUITY; HABEAS MARTIAL); PROBATE AND LETTERS Corpus, NoxRESIDENTS; SERVICE OF ADMINISTRATION, etc. etc.

OF PROCESS, etc. etc. Jurisdiction in Specific Actions.-See Jurisdiction Acquired and Lost.-See Bonds; DIVORCE; EMBEZZLEMENT; also APPEAL; CHANGE OF VENUE;

tion, 311.

AND

officers take cognizance of and decide causes, or, as it has been most frequently defined the power to hear and determine a cause.2 The definition thus limited implies that if a court having power to hear and determine a cause enters a judgment therein, the validity of such judgment is not affected by the power of the court to

un

by law.”

P. 26.

Death; DISCONTINUANCE ; Error, cise their power." Hale's Anal., § 11. Writ of; Foreign ATTACHMENT; “ The power of hearing and determin. Notice; REMOVAL OF CAUSES; SERV. ing causes, and of doing justice, in ICE OF PROCESS, etc. etc.

matters of complaint. Halifax Anal., Conflicts of Jurisdiction. - See Con- v. 3, c. 8, num. 4. FLICTS OF LAWS; CONSTITUTIONAL In the United States supreme court LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; HA- in 1832 the word was thus defined by BEAS CORPUS; INTERNATIONAL LAW; Mr. JUSTICE BALDWIN: “ The power JUDGMENT; NONRESIDENTS; Parti- to hear and determine a cause is juris TION; REMOVAL OF CAUSES, etc. etc. diction; it is coram judice,' whenever &

Effect of Acting without Jurisdiction. case is presented which brings thiv - See CONSTABLE; HABEAS CORPUS; power into action; if the petitioner JUDGE; JUDGMENT; JUSTICE OF THE states such a case in his petition that on PEACE ; MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ; a demurrer the court would render SHERIFF, etc. etc.

judgment in his favor, it is an Incidental Jurisdiction. See also doubted case of jurisdiction, whether CONTEMPT of Court; Courts (for on an answer denying and putting in RULES OF COURT).

issue the allegations of the petition, the Restraint of Acting without Jurisdic- ^petitioner makes out his case, is the tion.-See PROHIBITION, WRIT OF. exercise of jurisdiction conferred by

Territorial Jurisdiction.-See CRIMI- the filing of a petition containing all the NAL PROCEDURE ; EQUITY ; EJECT- requisites and in the manner prescribed MENT; NONRESIDENTS; SERVICE OF

U. S. v. Arrendo et al., 6 PROCESS; PARTITION, etc. etc.

Peters (U. S.) 691, 709. 1. Bouv. L. Dict. (15th ed.), vol. 2, And the same justice said later (1838)

that “jurisdiction is the power to hear 2. Definition.—There is perhaps no and determine the subject matter in word in English law that has been controversy between parties to a suit, more frequently defined than this of to adjudicate or exercise any judicial " jurisdiction. From the earliest times power over them; the question is, we find the question of its proper defini- whether on a case before a court, their tion engaging the attention of jurists. action is judicial or extrajudicial; withThus we find the following: “And out the authority of law, to render a jurisdiction is nothing else than to judgment or decree upon the rights of have the authority of judging, that is the litigant parties. If the law confers of pronouncing judgment between the power to render a judgment or departies in actions against persons or cree, then the court has jurisdicthings, according as they have been tion; what shall be adjudged or decreed brought into judginent by an authority between the parties, and with which is either ordinary or delegated, concern- the right of the case, is judicial action ing which we have spoken above con- by hearing and determining it.” State cerning the powers of those who judge.” of Rhode Island v. State of MassachuBracton De Legibus Angliae (Master setts, 12 Peters (U. S.), 657, 718. See of Rolls' ed. 1883), vol. 6, p. 159, or also Grignon's Lessee v. Astor et al., lib. 5, tract 5, fol. 400 v. Juris- 2 How. (U. S.) 319, 338. dictio est potestas de publico introducta Many of the decisions in the State cum necessitate jurisdicendi, i Bulst. courts are to the same effect. Thus in 210.” The case of the Marshalsea, 10 a recent case in Indiana (1887), the Coke 73a, or

as translated by Mr. court, in reversing the court below on Burrill: “ Jurisdiction is a power in- an appeal on the ground that the court troduced of common right [by public had not jurisdiction in the case, said: authority or for the common benefit] "Two things are absolutely essential to arising out of the necessity of declaring the power of a court to decide a legal the law."

controversy-jurisdiction of the subject * The right by which judges exer- matter and jurisdiction of the person. enter the judgment in question. To escape this difficulty there is a tendency in the latest decisions in the United States to hold

reason

nor

Both must exist, otherwise it is the im- could collaterally revise and correct its perative duty of the court to decline to decision. Thus in a case where, in an do more than ascertain and declare adverse proceeding, a decree had been that it has no power to examine or de- entered restraining a municipal corcide the merits of the controversy poration froin granting to certain perAuthors and courts agree upon this sons the right to construct a railroad rudimentary principle of law. “Neither on a city street, and subsequently a in

upon authority can person had been adjudged guilty of a there be a doubt as to its soundness. contemptin not obeying that injunction, Power is essential to the validity of and fined on appeal to the court of every act, judicial, legislative or exec- errors and appeals, JOHNSON, J., in utive. 'Where there is no power to delivering the opinion of the appellate hear and determine, there can be no court, quoted the above definition from judicial decision. Expressions of indi- State of Rhode Island, State of Massavidual opinion there may be, but a' chusetts, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 718), ante, n. 2, judicial judgment there cannot be. A p. 245), and then continued: “This, I judicial judgment is the product of apprehend, points to the true line of power-the power of the law-and is enquiry to determine the question of junot the mere expression of the individ- risdiction. We are not called upon to ual opinion of a judge. The question say whether the court decided right or is purely and intrinsically one of power, not in granting the injunction, but for the jurisdiction of a court consists whether it became their duty to decide solely in its power to hear and deter- either that it should be granted or demine the causes brought to its bar. If nřed. If such was their duty, then jurisdiction does not exist, power is they had jurisdiction, and their decision, absent, and if power is lacking, an ex- be it correct or erroneous, is the law pression of opinion upon any other than of the case until it shall be reversed a jurisdictional question, although ju- upon appeal; and can only be quesdicial in form, is simply the opinion of its tioned upon a direct proceeding to author; valuable, it may possibly be, as review it, and not collaterally.” Peo

argument, but effective the ple v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263, 267. opinion of the court it is not.” Robert- And in 1809, in an action of ejectson v. State (Ind.), 7 West. Rep. 481, ment, wherein the defendants relied 488; s. C., 10 Northeast. Rep. 582, 583. upon a purchase at an execution issued Many of the State courts have defined on a judgment confiscating the said real jurisdiction as the power to hear and estate, the plaintiff contended that determine the cause. See Wightman the act did not authorize confiscation in v. Krasner, 20 Ala. 446; Goodman v.

this case.

The supreme court refused Winter, 64 Ala. 410; Tramwell v. to consider this question, because the Town of Russellville, 34 Ark. 105; court which entered the judgment had Hickman v. O'Neal, 10 Cal. 292; Ex general jurisdiction in the action, and parte Bennett, 44 Cal. 84; Buch v. Han- therefore its judgment, even if erroson, 70 Ill. 480; Schroeder v. Mer- neous, was not void, and could not be chants & Mec. Ins. Co., 104 III. 71; enquired into in a collateral proceeding. State v. Lazarus (La.), i South. Rep. Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch 361, 391; Bumstead v. Read, 31 Barb. (U. S.) 173. (N Y.) 661; King v. Poole, 36 Barb. So in another early case in the (N. Y.) 242; Brownsville v. Basse, United States supreme court (1830), 43 Tex. 440; State v. Whitford, 54 where in a petition for a habeas corpus Wis. 150, 157

to inquire into the legality of the 1. Alleged Defect in Definition. - If petitioner's imprisonment by virtue of jurisdiction is simply the power to hear a judgment of a United States circuit and determine, it follows that a court court, the petitioner alleged that the inhaving jurisdiction of a cause may dictments under which he was conenter whatever judgment it may think victed and sentenced to imprisonment, proper, because it is a principle of the charged no offence for which the pris common law that the judgment of a oner was punishable in the court, or of court having jurisdiction is conclusive, which that court could take cognizance, and therefore there is no tribunal that and consequently that the proceedings

an

as

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »