Allured v. Voller

• Decision Date: 27 April 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 1037,112 Mich. 357
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ALLURED v. VOLLER.

70 N.W. 1037

112 Mich. 357

ALLURED v. VOLLER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 27, 1897

Error to circuit court, Osceola county; James B. McMahon, Judge.

Ejectment by Robert A. Allured against James H. Voller. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

M Brown, for appellant.

C. H Rose, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

This case was once before the court, and is reported in 65 N.W 285. On the former hearing, the question presented was whether the acceptance of service, accompanied by authority to the plaintiff to proceed as in case of actual service, of the writ, conferred jurisdiction upon the circuit court of Osceola county, it appearing that the acceptance was made in another county. It was held that inasmuch as the writing was more than a mere acceptance of service, and contained an authorization to proceed with the case, it gave jurisdiction. On the second trial of the case defendant sought to show that this acceptance of service was not in fact signed by the defendant in the original action brought by plaintiff against Pierson; and whether it was permissible to make this appear by parol testimony, in contradiction of the record, presents the sole question for consideration in the case. The question is not novel, or, if it be determined on authority, uncertain, nor do we deem it a doubtful one on principle. If it were permitted, in a collateral action, to impeach the validity of a judgment roll, by facts aliunde the record, a party relying upon such a judgment would never know how to shape his case for trial, or what multitude of issues he might be required to meet. Hence the rule that a judgment which on its face shows jurisdiction imports absolute verity when attacked collaterally. See Freem. Judgm. � 124, and Van Fleet, Coll. Attack, � 468, in which place it is said: "On principle, a judicial proceeding is never void because the proof of service is false in fact. Such proof is a necessary part of the record, and to permit its verity to be questioned collaterally overturns the very foundations of all judicial proceedings." See, also, the cases cited in the same section. See Landon v. Comet, 62 Mich. 90, 28 N.W. 788; Somers v. Losey, 48 Mich. 294; Corbitt v. Timmerman, 95 Mich. 581, 55 N.W. 437.

Some reliance is placed by counsel upon the language of Mr Justice Champlin in Steel Works v. Bresnahan, 66 Mich. 495, 33 N.W. 834, as follows: "It is a well-settled...