Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/720

708 FEDERAL REPOliTER. �" The question [of identity] waa litigated at the instance of Veiueuil him- self; it was solemnly determined against^his pretensions; and he took no appeal. * * * We are bound to assume that the decision was right. The presuuiption in sueh cases ia in favor of the probity of witnesses and the intelligence of the judge. Res jxidioatapro veritate accipitur." �In the case of Cox v. Thomas' Adm'x, 9 Gratt. 323, Thomas had been a sheriff, andthere was a motion- in the circuit court of his county, by his administratrix, to recover from Cox, his deputy, and the sureties of Cox, the amount of a judgment which had been recovered against the administratrix for money which had been collected by the deputy on an execution issued out of the county court of that county. It appeared from the face of the judgment that the execution upon which the deputy had collected the money had issued from the county court on a judgment of the circuit court, although section 48, 1 Eev. Code of 1819, p. 542, required the crediter to move in the court whence the execution issued, and the record did not show jurisdiotion in the cir- cuit court by removal from the county court. The court of appeals held that removal must be presumed from the fact that the circuit court had given judgment. Judge Allen, in rendering the decision of the court of appeals of Virginia, said : �" If the Jurisdiction of the circuit court extended over that class of cases, it was the province of the court to determine for itself whether the particular case was one within its jurisdiction. The circuit court is one of general juris- diction. * * * The jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of all con- troversies between individuals in proceedings at law need not (as in cases of limited and restricted jurisdiction) appear on the face of the proceedings. Where its jurisdiction is questioned, it must decide the question itself. iior is it bound to set forth on the record the facts upon which its jurisdiction depends. Wherever the subject-matter is a coutroversy at law between indi- viduals, the jurisdiction is presumed from the fact that it has pronounced the judgment; and the correctness of such judgment can be inquired into only by some appellate tribunal." �And then the learned judge, after showing that the circuit court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter involved, went on to say as to the parties : �«'The judgment in this case must be considered as conclusive for another reason. Both parties appeared, and the defendant eitlier submitted to the jurisdiction or it was decided agaiust liim. In such case, as President Tueker, in Fisher v. Bassett 9 Leigh, 119, observed, the question whether the general jurisdiction of the court over matters of that description embraced the par- ticular case, having been decided by its judgment, can never be raised again except by proceedings in error." ��� �