FEDERAL RllJP9RTICR,
voL 51.
In
EATON
et al.
, (Circuit Court, N. D. California. August 22,: 'N'os.11,6S4, 11,690. 1.VXOLl'!IONO:r Il1iJUNCTION-Qol'lTE!oIPT-HABEAS CORPUS. , '
," 11q"
oircuit C,ourt, order Q" injunction is not void because the necessary jl1rlSdlotionalfacts do not allpear on the face of the pleadings, and a person im· pI'illcmed for contemptinviolating. the same.is not entItled to release on habear . . .. ',' COURT.
·'
I!.
S.um-JURISDIOTION OF
.:
"Itls dbtlbtfulwbether court has any authority to review the judgment ot'.np'1;ler circuit COUl,'t by. wdtof habeas corpus. '
writ, ofhqbeasporpu8. «(r
by Thomas Eaton and others for a.
Met80n,.for petitioners.
The petitioners allege that a suit was court in and for the district of Idaho by the a corporatioll' agaillst the Miners' Union an order of inju l1y tion was issued, and se,id injunction, anq., were ap.ju.dged guilty dfcQntemptof the authprity court,andwere sente'nced to imvarious terwsill the COUl1ty jail of of Ada, in tl,lestate of Idah(), in imprisoned and detained byona dairnthat said()ircuitcourt ,110 jurisdiqti9n of said action, in tha:t iti,appearsupon the face filedin said action, and in that in point of l'll,ct, the said action il\IlQt of a, ,9ivil nll,tllre" at common ,Ja',V or. in equity, ""hereip the' arnoullt ill. ex,chlsive of interest, !:lnd ,costs,the surn or v.al,ue of ,$,2,000,; and tl,lat ,said action is not a suit iQ. which there is. a different states, ht which the ,matter iJ;idispute,exceeds, and costs, the sum of $2,,090; and petitionel1s, therefore, claim that the courthad.nojurisdiction to is-, sue the said qrder of injunction, or punish them for it. .,,, ' \ .,' ' . ',_ tpa,t the petitioners are ang that 110 other ground ofj,urisdiction appeared, the order of injl.1ncand ,contempt based upon it are nQt, void. 'rhe:supreme in Des Moines Na'l{. R. Co. v. Iowa settled by this court ll.very early day, )lIld the circuit courts might. be erroneous, if the records failed to show the facts on which the tion of the court rested, such as that the plaintiffs were citizens' of different states from the defendants, yet that they were not nullities, and would bind the parties until reversed or otherwise set aside. In Skillern's Ex'r8 v. May's Ex'rs, 6 Cranch, 267, the circuit court had taken jurisdiction of a suit and rendered a decree. The decree brought in' the
1N BE EATON.
805
was reversed by this court on appeal,and the cause remanded, with directions to proceed in a particular way. When the case got back it was discovered that the cause was · not within the jurisdiction of the court,' and the judges of the circuit court, certified to this court that they were opposed in opinion on the question whether it could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction after this court had acted thereon. To that question"the following answer was certified back: ,It appearing that the merits of the. cause had been finally decided in this,court, and that ita mandate required only the execution of its decree, it is the opinion of this court that the circllit court is bound to carry that decree into execution, although the junsdiction of that court be not alleged in the, pleadings.' That was in 1810. In 1825, McCurmick v. Svllivam, Wheat. 192, was decided. There a decree in a former suit was pleaded in bar of the action. To this a replication was filed, alleging that the pr9ceedingsin the formersuitwere cGrqmnon judice, the record· not showingthat t4e complainants and defendants in that suit were citizens, of: states; but this .court held, on appeal, that ·the courts of thE! United .States are courts of limited, but not ofinferior, jurisdiction. If the be not alleged in the proceedings, their judgments deereesID,ay be reversed for that cause on a writ o( error or appeal; but, until'reversed, they are conclush'e between the parties and their ·But they are not nullities.'. , There has never been any departure: this mIe." 123 U. S. 5<57,558, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 217. are distinguishable from Ex parte Ruwland., 104 U. S. ·604,:, These and 'other cases cited by petitioners' counsel. In Re Sawyer, 124.U.:S. 200,8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482, the court reaffirmed the doctril)ethat.a.n. order committing a party for contempt is a nullity if the comt :hadnl:t authority to make the order disobeyed. The, court said: . "As tliis court has often 'said: 'Where aco!lrt has jurisdiction, it right to decide every question which occurs in the cause; decision be correct or otherWise, its judgment, until rev.ersed, is other court. But if it act without authority, its jUdgments and. orders" are regarded as nullities. They. are not voidable, but simply EUwtt V.' Peif'sol, 1 P,et. 328,.340; WilcO:lJ v · Jackson, 13 Pet. 498" 511; Hickey v. Stewart, 8 How. 750, 7l:52; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, , "
;But th,ecourt further said, distinguishing voidable from void ments: "We do not rest our conclusion in this case in any degree upon the lJuggested in argument, that the bill does not show a matter in controversy of sufficient pecuniary value to support the jurisdiction of the circuit court, because an apparent defect of its jurisdiction in this respect, as in that of citizenship of parties, depending upon an inqUiry into facts which might or might not support the jurisdiction, can be availed of only by appeal or writ of error, and does not render its jUdgment or decree a nUllity. P1'igg v. Adams,2 Salk. 674, Carth.274; Fisher v. Bassett, 9 Leigh, 119, 181-133; Des Moines Na'O. & R. 00. v.lowa Home8tead 00.,123 U. S. 552, 8 Sup. Ct.
Bep.217."
806 , made' that if 'court;iand tile, cause, tifl 'tl'ieir''conlDlitment', inqUired", into, deciilioiI 'of '&.parte Terry, 289,'9 Rep,' 77', wiIt be, , 'Wbenthi'!l 'petiti6h,'Waspresented"to Iintimated.':that I doubted if circuit. for, ,for the' (lIStrlCt' of re-exalluOl'ng; re-reVlewmg, annulling,ur the agency writ of cot1lU8. the the cihmit'ooun for thenintncircuit in and 'fodhedistrict 3(1dabojIJut. as the writbils been 'denied' on thegrouilqIhave iIlready ldo rlotdeem: adetilliteQpinion on that The writ is denied. , (Augutt 29, IS99.) MtKENNA, Cireuit is fulJertbanthe former one. pte8ehtedAugust 19, 189,2; and some interen<leswhich the other permitted; , It may not be apparent upOn what grounds the circuit court of Idaho assumed and justified its jurisdiction. Yet I think the rule 00., 123 U.S. laid down in DeaMoiMI'Nt.w. <feR. 00. v. Iowa 552, Ct. applies. There is a distinction made between voida.ble judgments, even when a question of jurisdie> tion is! in\fOlved. In Re Sa1J1ger, 124 U. S. 200, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482, it was beld that an apparent defect of jurisdiction, because the bill does not show' matter in cOntroversy of sufficient pecuniaryvaJue, or a defect onaooount of the citizenship of parties, can only be availed of by appeal or Writ of error,and does not render a judgment or decree a nullity. Tbepetition herein only shows such defects; henoo the judKment of the circuit coun walFoot a nullity. I take occasion to reveat the in my former opinion, of the propriety, if not compadoubt, \ency,' Q1, thiscoul't entertaining the petition, and reviewing, by writ of ltab«JI the circuit court for the state of Idaho. The writ of Iw.btru C07jlUB is ofpre-eminenttight, but the observance and maintenance of the due relatil>lls of courts is also ' If this court can review the court because, as a circuit ,court, it bas tbe power to issue a writ of habea8 C07jlU8, it could, under the same powel', review a judgment of the supreme court. To do so would be more strikingly invidious. but not really less invidious, than to review a judgment. of another circuit court. The writ is thereioEe denied. ,
ns
'a.:
UNITED STATES tI. EL'tIOTT.
807
UNITED STATES V.,ELLIOTT.
(Di.strl.ct Oourt, D. Kentucky. July 8, 1899.) POST OnTOB-NONMAILABLlll MATTER-DUNNING POSTAL CARD.
A postal card n6ticetbat rent was due and, unpaid, and, if Dot paid by a cel'taill date, that tbe"lnatter would be placJ('Q in the l:iandsof ao officer," does not C()me ,witbin the probibition of the act of September, 1SS" declaring nonmailable anypoltal card of a "threatening character," and "ohviouslyintended,ll from its "tE'l'!US, manner, and style of display, to rellect injuriously upon the character of anotber." '
At L$w. Indictment of R. G. Elliott for mailing a nonmailable postal card. Demurrer to indictment sustained. ' ' Goo. W. Jolly, U. S. Atty. Wm. ,R. Sneed, for defendant. Jlldge. The indictment charges the with kqowin'gly depositing in the mail of the United States for transportation a postal card, which is in the foJlowing language, viz.: ' "LEXiNGTON, KY., 1892· ..E. R. Oder: Your rent was due Thursday, Feu'y 25th, 1892, and has not been paid. If the rent is not paid uy Thursday, Mch. lird, 1892, I will place the matter in the hands of an ollker. R. G. ELLIOTT," "Respectfully, .l.hemailingofthiscard.itis claimed, violated the act of September, 1888, in regard to nonmailable matter, and this is the question raised by the demurrer. That act declares nonmailable any postal card upon which there are.. Any delineations. epithets. or language of an indecent. lewd. lasciviOU8. obscene, libelous, sCllrrUonll, defamatory. or threatening charilcter. or calculated by the terms, manner. or style of display, lind obviously intended, to reflect injuriously upon the character or conduct of another." It cannot be said that there is in the terms, manner, or style of display on this postal card an obvious intention to affect injuriously the character of Mr. Oder. Is the postal card of a threatening character? Clearly, Mr. Elliott had the legal right to put his claim for rent past due in the hands of an officer for collection. The notice of that fact was not legally necessary, but, as he gave another and extended day of payment, I cannot think the notification that. if not then paid, it would be put in the hands of an officer, is of the threatening character mentioned in the statute. This act is highly penal, and should be strictly construed. There is, we think, nothing in the language of this act or the general law which prohibits the use of postal cards for the simple purpose of asking payment of a past-due debt, or of notifying a debtor that, if not paid, legal steps will be taken for its collection. In this case Elliott reminded Oder that his rent was past due, which was presumably,well known to him; but, as he extended the time for payment, and said if not then paid he would place the claiill in the hands of an officer, it was