United States v. Meyer

• Decision Date: 27 May 1909
• Docket Number: 64.
• Citation: 170 F. 983
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. MEYER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Washington

170 F. 983

UNITED STATES v. MEYER.

No. 64.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington, Southern Division.

May 27, 1909

Andrew J. Balliet, Asst. U.S. Atty.

H. J Snively, for respondent.

WHITSON District Judge.

The respondent is the widow of an honorably discharged soldier who had never applied for admission to citizenship, nor made a declaration of intention. On the 10th day of April, 1908 she presented her petition for naturalization to the superior court of the state of Washington for the county of Benton alleging the alienage of her husband and herself, and on the 15th day of July next following was admitted to citizenship by that court. She filed no declaration of intention, but relied upon the service of her husband in the army and the discharge received during his lifetime. The controversy is raised by demurrer to the petition, filed in this court, to cancel and set aside the certificate issued in pursuance of the order made in the state court.

Want of power to grant the relief prayed for, because the matter in issue was adjudicated by a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and a construction of federal statutes which justified the admission of the respondent, is the reliance of her counsel.

Treating the judgment of the state court as an adjudication with the parties before it, and with authority to consider the subject-matter, we must refer to the general rule in such cases, for a judgment of this character must be given the same force and effect as that of any other judgment of a court of general jurisdiction.

In United States v. Walker, 109 U.S. 258, 266, 3 Sup.Ct. 277, 282, 27 L.Ed. 927, the Supreme Court had under consideration a principle applicable to the issues here.

It was there said:

'Although a court may have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject-matter yet if it makes a decree which is not within the powers granted to it by the law of its organization its decree is void.'

So Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274, 23 L.Ed. 914, was discussed, and the following excerpt noted:

'The doctrine invoked by counsel, that when a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which arises in the case, and its judgment, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is undoubtedly correct as a general proposition, but it is subject to many qualifications in its application. It is only correct when the court proceeds, after acquiring jurisdiction of the cause, according to established modes governing the class to which the case belongs, and does not transcend in the extent or character of its judgment the law which is applicable to it.'

Again, the following from Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 21 L.Ed. 872, was quoted approvingly:

'It is no answer to this to say that the court had jurisdiction of the person of the prisoner and of the offense under the statute. It by no means follows that these two facts make valid, however erroneous it may be, any judgment the court may render in such case.'

An erroneous finding or a mistake in judgment of a court having jurisdiction cannot be reviewed or reconsidered by one of no greater authority. Such courts cannot sit in review of the decisions of each other. United States v. Gleason (C.C.) 78 F. 396, and cases there cited, affirmed in 90 F. 778, 33 C.C.A. 272. But where a court goes beyond the limits which the law has fixed, it is coram non judice. Avegno v. Schmidt, 113 U.S. 302, 5 Sup.Ct. 487, 28 L.Ed. 976; Freeman on Judgments (4th Ed.) Sec. 120c; Grignon v. Astor et al., 43 U.S. 337, 11 L.Ed. 283. In Voorhees v. Bank, 10 Pet. 450, 9 L.Ed. 490, it was said that the line which separates error in judgment from usurpation of power is very definite, and it was pointed out that in the latter case the judgment is a nullity.

It is with this principle in view that I proceed to an examination of the merits of the petition. Section 2166 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331) was not repealed by Act June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U.S. Comp. St Supp. ...