Page:Borden v. State ex rel. Robinson.pdf/45

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
ark.]
Borden Et Al. vs. State, use &c.
563

that is allowed, and if there be no notice actual or constructive the judgment is a nullity." 1 S. & M. Rep. 368.

In Connecticut it was held in 1 Day's Rep. 429, Slocum vs. Wheeler that the sentence of a court, that has not jurisdiction of the person and the subject matter, is an entire nullity.

In Ohio, Lessee of Payne vs. Moreland, 15 Ohio Rep. 444, Reed, J. said, "A court acquires jurisdiction by its own process. If the process of the court be executed on the person or thing concerning which the court are to pronounce judgment, jurisdiction is acquired. The writ draws the person or thing within the power of the court; the court once by its process having acquired the power to adjudicate upon a person or thing it has what is called jurisdiction. This power or jurisdiction is only acquired by its process. To give jurisdiction is the object of process." It is worthy of remark that this is a later case than those referred to to sustain a different rule and not only reviews its former decisions but also the case of Vorhees vs. U. S. Bank, 10 Peters Rep.

In New Hampshire, Smith vs. Knowlton, 11 N. Hamp. R. 191, held, "That a judgment of a court, which has no jurisdiction of the cause, is an entire nullity. But not so, where it has jurisdiction of the cause and the parties, but only proceeds erroneously."

In Vermont, Egerton vs. Hart, 8 Verm. 208, held, that in order to render a valid judgment the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person by notice.

In Missouri it is held in Smith vs. Ross and Strong, that "In order to ascertain whether there was notice reference must be had to the proceedings prior to the judgment, and if it does not appear from them that the party was notified, we cannot infer it because judgment was rendered against him. The judgment against Haneman, according to the principles above stated being void, the plaintiff did right in regarding it as a nullity as to him and declaring against Smith alone."

These authorities are clear and decided, going to establish, first, that notice in proceedings against the person is necessary;