Cited in Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen, 10, 90 Am. Dec. 129, holding probate judge may admit to probate a codicil to will already admitted, which was on the back of original will but unnoticed at the time.

Judgment. If no jurisdiction exists, proceedings are void and may be rejected on collateral attack, p. 163.

Cited with approval in Thornhill v. Bank, 1 Woods, 5, F. C. 13,992, holding proceedings under superseded insolvency law void; Lavin v. Bank, 18 Blatchf. 27, 1 Fed. 665, reviewing principal case, and holding administration on estate of living person void; McCartney v. Calhoun, 11 Ala. 120, sale in absence of jurisdiction does not divest title; Bishop v. Hampton, 15 Ala. 767, applying rule and holding similarly to preceding case; McGehee v. Wilkins, 31 Fla. 86, 12 So. 229, where defendant is not before the court, judgment is void and open to collateral attack; Railroad v. Davis, 13 Ga. 76, holding judgment of arbitrators void on collateral attack for failure to follow jurisdictional requirement; Reed v. Wright, 2 G. Greene, 35, holding judgment rendered under unconstitutional act void; Seely v. Reid, 3 G. Greene, 379, holding sale where there was no service of process void, collecting cases; Ex parte Holman, 28 Iowa, 178, dissenting opinion, arguendo, State court may review void proceeding in Federal court by habeas corpus; Lowry v. Erwin, 6 Rob. (La.) 205, holding void a judgment of Federal court where both parties resided without the State; Vick v. Vicksburg, 1 How. (Miss.) 440, 31 Am. Dec. 180, holding void an appointment of administrator cum test. an. in case falling without the statute; Tarleton v. Cox, 45 Miss. 438, judgment rendered after death of party without revivor by scire facias is void; Kittredge v. Emerson, 15 N. H. 263, 267, decree of Federal court under bankruptcy act enjoining proceedings in State court; Miltimore v. Miltimore, 40 Pa. St. 155, decree of divorce; James v. Smith, 2 S. C. 188, attachment for contempt: Adams v. Agnew, 15 S. C. 42, judgment by default entered by clerk in term time; Sutherland v. De Leon, 1 Tex. 309, 46 Am. Dec. 107, proceeding by attachment; Sitzman v. Pacquette, 13 Wis. 318, appointment of administrator d. b. n. in absence of contingency contemplated by statute.

Judgments. When jurisdiction over the subject-matter appears on the face of the proceedings, errors or mistakes of the court cannot be corrected or examined collaterally, pp. 163, 169.

Cited and applied in United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 730, 8 L. 561, holding rule extends to executive and legislative as well as judicial acts, collecting cases; Cocke v. Halsey, 16 Pet. 87, 10 L. 897, holding when court has jurisdiction, decision presumed correct; Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 345, 17 L. 874, refusing to question, col. laterally, judgment of competent court declaring lands redeemed VOL. II-52

from forfeiture; Keyes v. United States, 109 U. S. 340, 27 L. 956, 3 S. Ct. 204, refusing to question collaterally decision of courtmartial; White v. Crow, 110 U. S. 189, 28 L. 115, 4 S. Ct. 74, everything presumed in favor of judgment on collateral attack; United States v. Land Co., 148 U. S. 44, 37 L. 360, 13 S. Ct. 463, refusing to question decision of State governor exercising power conferred on him by act of congress; In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 553, 41 L. 1112, 17 S. Ct. 660, allegation of citizenship in bill cannot be questioned on habeas corpus; Derby v. Jacques, 1 Cliff. 437, F. C. 3,817, erroneous decision binding until reversed; Cassels v. Vernon, 5 Mason, 335, F. C. 2,503, decree of Probate Court establishing will cannot be attacked collaterally on ground of incompetency of testator; Starr v. Stark, 2 Sawy. 621, F. C. 13,317, applying rule to ruling of court in progress of trial, compelling election between counts; Tompkins v. Tompkins, 1 Story, 553, F. C. 14,091, applying rule to decree of Supreme Court as to validity of will; Lincoln v. Tower, 2 McLean, 485, F. C. 8,355, record is conclusive on all matters which might have been traversed, collecting cases; Sprague v. Litherberry, 4 McLean, 452, F. C. 13,251, reviewing principal case and refusing to question collaterally appointment of guardian; McArthur v. Allen, 3 Fed. 322, reviewing authorities and refusing to question collaterally decree setting aside will; In re Wilson, 18 Fed. 37, on habeas corpus every presumption is in favor of jurisdiction, collecting cases; Walker v. Sturbans, 38 Fed. 300, refusing to disturb decree establishing priority of liens on collateral attack; Reinach v. Railroad Co., 58 Fed. 43, collecting authorities and distinguishing between jurisdictional and quasi-jurisdictional allegations. The following State court cases also affirm and follow the syllabus doctrine: Ryder v. Innerarity, 4 Stew. & P. 30, refusing to permit collateral attack on decision of land commissioner; Evans v. Percifull, 5 Ark. 429, on decision of Circuit Court in action of ejectment; Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 548, 54 Am. Dec. 238, holding when jurisdiction of subject-matter exists jurisdiction of the person cannot be inquired into collaterally; and in dissenting opinion, S. C., 11 Ark. 564; Conway v. Ellison, 14 Ark. 363, refusing to enjoin proceedings on erroneous judgment of sister State; In re Warfield, 22 Cal. 63, 83 Am. Dec. 51, refusing to question collaterally decree of Probate Court admitting will to probate; Corrigan v. Jones, 14 Colo. 314, 23 Pac. 914, holding similarly to preceding case; Holcomb v. Phelps, 16 Conn. 132, applying rule to decree of foreign court; Camp v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 196, holding officer protected in executing writ irregularly issued from court of competent jurisdiction; Muncey v. Joest, 74 Ind. 412, holding conclusive a finding of board of commissioners that facts sustaining their own jurisdiction exist; Hampson v. Weare, 4 Iowa, 16, 66 Am. Dec. 118, refusing to question collaterally a judgment directing execution against stockhollers for corporate debt; Orr v. Thomas, 3 La. Ann. 584, as also

adjudication of community property; Jeannet v. Ricker, 10 La. Ann. 67, a decree constituting infant a major; Salisbury Assn. V. Wicomico Co., 86 Md. 622, 39 Atl. 427, a decision of State board of appeals; Parker v. Parker, 11 Cush. 526, a decree of foreign court admitting will to probate; Watson v. Ulbrich, 18 Neb. 189, 24 N. W. 733, a decree questioning title; Foster v. Dugan, 8 Ohio, 107, 31 Am. Dec. 434, and Pillsbury v. Dugan, 9 Ohio, 120, 34 Am. Dec. 429, denying collateral inquiry into decree in partition; Williams v. Saunders, 5 Cold. 78, as also foreign decree establishing will; Yates v. Houston, 3 Tex. 447, decree of Probate Court establishing title to property by succession; Lynch v. Baxter, 4 Tex. 446, 51 Am. Dec. 743, holding similarly to preceding case; Giddings v. Steele, 28 Tex. 752, 91 Am. Dec. 342, decree and orders of Probate Court.

Cited, but without particular application of the rule, in Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 600, 10 L. 609, dissenting opinion; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 628, 10 L. 627; Noble v. Railroad Co., 147 U. S. 174, 37 L. 126, 13 S. Ct. 273, holding decision of secretary of interior afecting property rights cannot be revoked by his successor; Bell v. Trust Co., 1 Biss. 270, F. C. 1,260, discussing general subject of nature of jurisdiction; In re McKibben, 16 Fed. Cas. 212, discussing subject of jurisdictional allegations, collecting cases.

Judicial sales.- Where jurisdiction of subject-matter exists sale by Probate Court cannot be avoided on collateral attack, pp. 163, 169.

Cited and rule applied in Voorhees v. Bank, 10 Pet. 477, 478, 9 L. 501, refusing to set aside judicial sale on collateral attack for error anterior to judgment, reviewing authorities; Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 342, 343, 11 L. 292, refusing to set aside sale by County Court upon collateral attack; Beauregard v. New Orleans, 18 How. 503, 15 L. 472, refusing to allow probate sale to be attacked collaterally; Parker v. Kane, 22 How. 14, 16 L. 290, refusing to set aside administrator's sale, collaterally, where no guardian has been appointed to represent the heirs; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 316, 19 L. 932, collecting cases and refusing to question collaterally execution sale founded on judgment in rem; Hall v. Law, 102 U. S. 464, 26 L. 218, refusing to set aside partition proceedings on collateral attack, when record failed to show they were founded on petition; Davis v. Gaines, 104 U. S. 391, 26 L. 759. reviewing authorities, and refusing to vacate probate sale on collateral attack when proceedings had been invalidated by subsequent discovery of a will; Thaw v. Ritchie, 136 U. S. 548, 34 L. 538, 10 S. Ct. 1044, refusing to impeach collaterally order of sale in probate for want of notice to heirs; Manson v. Duncanson, 166 U. S. 547, 41 L. 1110, 17 S. Ct. 652, refusing to permit collateral attack on probate sale for want of notice to nonresident minor; Thompson v. Phillips,

Bald. 272, F. C. 13,974, refusing to question, collaterally, erroneous sale under fi. fa.; Bank of United States v. Voorhees, 1 McLean, 225, F. C. 939, reviewing principal case and refusing to permit collateral attack on sale under attachment; Sumner v. Moore, 2 McLean, 62, F. C. 13,070, refusing to question collaterally execution sale under voidable levy; Miller v. Sullivan, 4 Dill. 343, F. C. 9,592, or a guardian's sale; Daily v. Doe, 3 Fed. 913, 914, or a marshal's sale in admiralty; Garrett v. Boeing, 68 Fed. 61, 37 U. S. App. 42, or an administrator's sale.

In the State courts citing cases affirm and follow the doctrine thus: Wyman v. Campbell, 6 Port. 234, 235, 241, 31 Am. Dec. 684, 685, 689, sale under decree of Orphans' Court may not be collaterally avoided, collecting and reviewing authorities; Cole v. Connolly, 16 Ala. 281, or foreclosure sale; King v. Kent, 29 Ala. 554, or probate sale; Wright v. Ware, 50 Ala. 558, or administrator's sale; George v. Norris, 23 Ark. 129, probate sale; Finlayson v. Lipscomb, 16 Fla. 763, foreclosure sale; Grier v. McLendon, 7 Ga. 365, guardian's sale; Tucker v. Harris, 13 Ga. 14, 58 Am. Dec. 497, administrator's sale; Swiggart v. Harber, 4 Scam. 371, 39 Am. Dec. 423, execution sale; Lane v. Bommelmann, 17 Ill. 98, administrator's sale, collecting cases; Ponder v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 267, 48 Am. Dec. 201, title of purchaser at execution sale not affected by subsequent reversal of judgment; Tiffany v. Clover, 3 G. Greene, 402, arguendo, attachment sale not void for irregular return of sheriff; Hain v. Smith, 1 Ind. 460, refusing to question collaterally commissioner's sale in probate; Anderson v. Wilson, 100 Ind. 407, foreclosure sale; Johnson v. Carson, 3 G. Greene, 501, sheriff's sale in partition; Cavender v. Smith, 1 Iowa, 348, sheriff sale under execution; Morrow v. Weed, 4 Iowa, 89, administrator's sale; Denegre v. Haun, 14 Iowa, 248, 81 Am. Dec. 485, sale of homestead under execution; Pursley v. Hayes, 22 Iowa, 34, 92 Am. Dec. 368, guardlan's sale; Paine v. Spratley, 5 Kan. 541, execution sale; Mills v. Ralston, 10 Kan. 212, foreclosure sale; Depuy v. Bemiss, 2 La. Ann. 515, sale under order of United States Circuit Court; Nisdom v. Buckner, 31 La. Ann. 57, 58, mortgage sale under decree of Probate Court; Cockey v. Cole, 28 Md. 285, 92 Am. Dec. 686, a foreclosure sale, reviewing principal case; Schley v. Baltimore, 29 Md. 47, sale under decree in chancery; Long v. Long, 62 Md. 63, sale under decree, collecting cases; Sanders v. McDonald, 63 Md. 512, foreclosure sale; Jones v. Talbot, 9 Mo. 124 (125), sale under decree setting aside deed of trust; Trumble v. Williams, 18 Neb. 154, 24 N. W. 720, and Gordon v. Gordon, 55 N. H. 405, administrator's sale; Blanchard v. Webster, 62 N. H. 468, executor's sale; Monroe v. Douglas, 4 Sandf. Ch. 197, 205, trustee's sale; Glover v. Ruffin, 6 Ohio, 270, and Ewing v. Higby, 7 Ohio, 200, 28 Am. Dec. 636, administrator's sale; Sydnor v. Roberts, 13 Tex. 620, 65 Am Dec. 92, execution sale; Alexander v. Maverick, 18 Tex. 194, 67 Am. Dec.

696, administrator's sale; Hawley v. Bullock, 29 Tex. 224, sheriff's sale; Hudson v. Jurnigan, 39 Tex. 588, probate sale; Quesenberry v. Barbour, 31 Gratt. 500, trustee's sale; Pennybacker v. Switzer, 75 Va. 686, guardian's sale, reviewing authorities; Allan v. Hoffman, 83 Va. 137, 2 S. E. 606, sale in chancery; Ryan v. Fergusson, 3 Wash. 368, 28 Pac. 914, and Jackson v. Astor, 1 Pinn. 161, 39 Am. Dec. 294, administrator's sale, and cited in note, 79 Am. Dec. 164, collecting cases on collateral attack on attachment proceedings. Distinguished in Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U. S. 282, 31 L. 439, 8 S. Ct. 472, holding no presumption of jurisdiction exists in proceedings, not according to the common course of justice; Adams v. Jeffries, 12 Ohio, 272, 40 Am. Dec. 479, holding void an administrator's sale when heirs not parties to proceedings.

Courts. Every reasonable intendment is made in favor of the proceedings of a court of competent jurisdiction, p. 165.

Cited, Hunt's Heirs v. Ellison's Heirs, 32 Ala. 194, applying rule to sustain foreclosure sale attacked for irregularity; Bumpus v. Fisher, 21 Tex. 568, to proceedings in criminal case attacked for malice; Shadracks v. Woolfolk, 32 Gratt. 709, judgment presumed regular on collateral attack; Horner v. Doe, 1 Ind. 133, 48 Am. Dec. 358, jurisdiction of person and subject-matter will be presumed in case of court of competent jurisdiction, collecting cases.

Distinguished, Cooper v. Sunderland, 3 Iowa, 129, 66 Am. Dec. 61, reviewing authorities, and holding that presumption of jurisdiction does not apply to court exercising functions out of the ordinary course of judicial acts.

Deed Recitals. It is sufficient to recite the substance of the proceedings in a commissioner's deed, under act requiring their recital, without selling them out in haec verba, p. 167.

Cited and approved, Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 339, 340, 11 L. 291, holding jurisdiction sufficiently shown if anything appears on the record showing the subject-matter and the exercise of the judicial power.

Judicial sales.- Purchaser at judicial sale is not bound to look further back than the order of the court, p. 168.

Cited, approved and followed in Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 455, 34 L. 1061, 11 S. Ct. 374, Sumner v. Moore, 2 McLean, 64, F. C. 13,610, Price v. Winter, 15 Fla. 106, Buckmaster v. Carlin, 3 Scam. 108, reviewing authorities, Mills v. Ralston, 10 Kan. 212, Lalanne v. Moreau, 13 La. 437, McCullough v. Minor, 2 La. Ann. 468, Succession of Hebrard, 18 La. Ann. 494, Howard v. Moore, 2 Mich. 232, reviewing principal case, Seward v. Didier, 16 Neb. 62, 20 N. W. 13, reviewing authorities, Sheldon v. Newton, 3 Ohio St. 500, and Dancy, v. Stricklinge, 15 Tex. 559, 65 Am. Dec. 182. Affirmed in Burdett v.