Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/913

906 PBDEEAL EEPOETEB. �and the record of this court in the suit in which the boat was sold was put in evidence, and, nevertheless, the jury found for the plaintiff for possession, and the justice rendered judgment as alleged in the answer. But obviously there is nothing in the suggestion that a purchaser under a marshal's sale, or one who succceded to his title, is net, equally with any other person having or claiming to have a title to a vessel, liable to be sued, in an action of replevin to recover the same, in any state court which, under the laws of the state, has jurisdiction over the parties, and also jurisdiction over the subject-matter; that is, of an action of replevin. �Possession under a marshal's deed gives the grantee no exemption from being sued. If sued he must show his title by way of defence. The eommencing of a suit against him by due process of law is not an interference with the author-. ity of the marshal, or with the court by whoae authority he eells. There is nothing in the laws of the United States im- pairing the concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts over suits for the possession of ships beeause the title of the de- fendant sued is thus derived. The Royal Saxon, 1 Wall, 333. Nor is there any difference between a court of general and a court of limited jurisdiction in the elïect of the judgment as a conclusive determination of the rights of the parties, pro- vided the court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, and jurisdiction of the parties. A judgment of an in- ferior court is just as biuding in such a case as that of a court of general jurisdiction, subject, of course, to that right of appeal or review which the laws of the state may give to the defeated party. �It seems also to be the law of the state of New York that the judgment rendered by a justice's court is valid, though not entered in his doeket, and omissions in his docket may be supplied by paroi evidence. In this case, although the entry of judgment is simply "Costs, 8.75," it has been satis- factorily shown that the justice declared his judgment in favor of the plaintiff, after trial and verdict, and in conformity to the verdict. Hall v. Tuttle, 6 Hill, 38. �ïhe question, then, is whether it is shown by the respond- ����