least a month after such final adjournment, and that since the institution of this suit Woodruff had paid to said Samuel Robinson the full amount due upon the allowance mentioned in said execution—which was all the evidence introduced, or offered by either party.
Watkins & Curran, for the plaintiffs.
The order of allowance and the order of payment and for execution are each absolutely void for want of notice to Woodruff: consequently, the sheriff was not bound to execute the writ of execution issued thereon. This court have uniformly decided that no judgment can he rendered against a party without notice. It does not appear that Woodruff had any notice either of the original order of allowance or of the order of payment. The order of payment has the effect of a judgment; and if it can be made without notice, the administrator might be compelled to pay a large amount when if he had been afforded an opportunity of being heard, he could have shown that he had no available assets in his hands.
Fowler, contra.
Mr. Justice Scott delivered the opinion of the Court.
The main question to be determined in this case is, whether or not the order of payment made in the probate court against Woodruff was a nullity. It is a question of great importance because it involves legal principles upon which some of the fundamental rules of property rest, on the stability of which in a great degree depends the repose of the country.
The ground of the supposed nullity of the order in question is the want of previous notice to Woodruff and of any waiver of such on his part. And it is insisted that in every case a judgment or decree is a nullity, if it has not been preceded by notice, actual or constructive, to the party against whom it is rendered. This position is understood to be based upon a general proposition that such a proceeding would be directly against a law of
