« AnteriorContinuar »
Central Law Journal
ALEXANDER H. ROBBINS, Managing Editor
JULY— DECEMBER, 1917
Central Law Journal.
its mere assertion of its own power, even where its power depends upon a fact and
it finds the fact." ST. LOUIS, MO., JULY 6, 1917.
He says, however, that: "When the power DUE PROCESS OF LAW NO PROTECTION
of the court in all other respects is estabAGAINST IMPERFECTION IN JUDICIAL lished, what acts of the defendant shall be REASONING.
deemed a submission to its power is a mat
ter upon which states may differ. The case of Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. statute should provide that filing a plea in Cherry, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 492, appears abatement, or taking the question to a high
, Very suggestive as to the enforcement of er court should have that effect, it could thie faith and credit clause of the federal not be said to deny due process of law. The Constitution.
defendant would be free to rely upon his
defense by letting judgment go by default. Associate Justice Holmes thus states the situation : "This is a suit in Illinois upon a
li, without a statute, a court should decide, ji:dgment recovered in Tennessee against
as we have supposed the statute to enact, it
would infringe no rights under the Constithe insurance companies, plaintiffs in er
tution of the United States." ror. They pleaded and set up at the trial that there was no valid service upon them
The justice then speaks of taking a quesin Tennessee and that the judgment was
tion of jurisdiction to a higher court as also void. The defendant in error showed in amounting to submission in the lower court, reply, without dispute, that the defense and then, curiously to us, he speaks as folwas urged in Tennessee by pleas in abate- lows: "It can be no otherwise when a court ment; that, upon demurrer to one plea and
so decides as to proceedings in another state. upon issue joined on the other, the deci- It may be mistaken upon what to it is a matsion was for the plaintiff; and that the
ier of fact, the law as to the other state. judgment was affirmed by the appellate
But a mere mistake of that kind is not a court, and a writ of certiorari was denied denial of due process of law. Whenever a by the supreme court of that state. The wrong judgment is entered against a deinsurance companies say that the present
fendant, his property is taken when it judgment deprives them of their property
should not have been; but whatever the without due process of law."
ground may be, if the mistake is not so im
possible in a rational administration of jusThe appellate court of Illinois, to which
tice, it is no more than the imperfection of the writ of error in this case was directed,
man, not a denial of constitutional rights. held that, as the issue of jurisdiction over
The decision of the Illinois court, right or the parties was raised and adjudicated after
wrong, was not such a denial.” full hearing in the former case, it could not le reopened in this suit on the judgment.
It is a little difficult to say upon what Ii was said by Justice Holmes, speaking of particular principle this case was ruled. It the holding by the Illinois court, that: “The
may be true that the filing of a plea in matter was thought to stand differently
abatement in the Tennessee court could be