tion to render a judgment against a person, who has had no notice whatever of the proceedings against him."
In the case of The Mary, 3 Cond. U. S. R. 312, Marshall, C. J. said, "But notice of the controversy is necessary in order to become a party. And it is a principle of natural justice, of universal obligation that, before the rights of an individual be bound by a judicial sentence, he shall have notice either actual or implied of the proceedings against him."
In Boswell's lessee vs. Otis et al. 9 How. U. S. R. 350, McLean, J. said, "No principle is more vital to the administration of justice than that no man shall be condemned in his person or property without notice and an opportunity to make his defence."
In the face of these authorities, embracing the opinions of the most distinguished and profound jurists in the highest English and American courts, including their latest published opinions, can it be said that this right to be heard in defence of property is not a "natural right of universal obligation"? And if such then it is evident that such notice is indispensably necessary to the validity of a judgment against the person.
But, secondly, I insist that notice is not only a "natural right of universal obligation," as shown most conclusively from the authorities cited, but it is also a constitutional reversed right excepted out of the general powers of the government and declared to be "inherent and indefeasible," and placed in the bill of rights upon the same footing with life, liberty and reputation and with them it must stand or fall. The 1st sec. art. 2 const., ordains "That all freemen, when they form a social compact are equal, and have inherent and indefeasible rights, amongst which are those of enjoying and defending life, and liberty, and of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation and of pursuing their own happiness." Sec. 10, "That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or law of the land." Thus in each of these sections, the one asserting the rights and the other limiting the
