Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/261

246 FEDERAL REPORTER. �court is BO required to aet, is conclusive upon a collateral attack, and I understand the authorities cited in this opinion to sustain that proposition, even though some of the pre-existing faets alleged are of a juriadictional character. If the Une thus indicated in these two classes of decisions is not the true one between disputable and conclusive determinations and adjudications of jurisdictional facts — and there must be some Une — then I confess I am not able to say where it should be drawn, and I shall leave it to the supreme court, when a proper occasion arises, to definitely and sharply locate it. If the line between inconclusive and conclusive adjudications of juris- dictional facts is to be further advanced in the direction of the latter, I shall leave it to that tribunal to make the advance. I cer- tainly shall not be the one to take the first step. If, however, the supreme court should make the advance, I shall obediently follow, but I fear with "unequal," — non passibus cequia, — certainly with re- Inctant steps. In my judgment the community ought to be entitled to rely with some confidence upon the solemn adjudications of the superior courts of the country, and I, for one, am unwilling to take the lead in judicial action that must, in the nature of things, largely ex- aggerate that very general lack of confidence in the sanctity, inviola- bility, and validity of the judicial records of even our superior courts, which it is notorious now so widely prevails, largely depreciating the value of all titles to property resting upon judicial sales and proceed- ings, at least on this side of the continent. �Counsel cites section I66, clause 16, of the Oregon Civil Gode, relating to disputable presumptions, as controlling the case. The only observation I have to make upon that provision of the statute is that this is not a case of presumption, but of an actual adjudica- tion of a fact upon proper allegations and proofs — a case of res adju- dicata. �I regret that there is no appeal, as the point involved is one that ought to be authoritatively determined, and the question forever set at rest. But the statute expressly limits the recovery in such cases to $5,000, and that sum is, therefore, the utmost amount that can be in contre versy. Or. Civ. Code, § 367. �Upon the views expressed, the petition for rebearing must be denied, and it is so ordered. ��� �