Opinion of the Court.

of March 2, 1867, c. 196, 14 Stat. 558, in force when the proceedings now under consideration were had, it was not error in the Circuit Court to remand the suit if all the defendants were not citizens of different States from all the plaintiffs; but here the question is, whether, if all the parties were actually before the Circuit Court, the decree of this court on appeal is absolutely void, if it appears on the face of the record that some of the defendants who did not join in the petition for removal were citizens of the same State with the plaintiff.

way.

It was settled by this court at a very early day, that, although the judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts might be erroneous, if the records failed to show the facts on which the jurisdiction of the court rested, such as that the plaintiffs were citizens of different States from the defendants, yet that they were not nullities, and would bind the parties until reversed or otherwise set aside. In Skillern's Executors v. May's Executors, 6 Cranch, 267, the Circuit Court had taken jurisdiction of a suit and rendered a decree. That decree was reversed by this court on appeal, and the cause remanded with directions to proceed in a particular When the case got back it was discovered that the cause was "not within the jurisdiction of the court," and the judges of the Circuit Court certified to this court that they were opposed in opinion on the question whether it could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction after this court had acted thereon. To that question the following answer was certified back: "It appearing that the merits of the cause had been finally decided in this court, and that its mandate required only the execution of its decree, it is the opinion of this court that the Circuit Court is bound to carry that decree into execution, although the jurisdiction of that court be not alleged in the pleadings." That was in 1810. In 1825, McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192, was decided by this court. There a decree in a former suit was pleaded in bar of the action. To this a replication was filed, alleging that the proceedings in the former suit were coram non judice, the record not showing that the complainants and defendants in that suit were citizens of different States; but this court held

Opinion of the Court.

on appeal that "the courts of the United States are courts of limited, but not of inferior, jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction be not alleged in the proceedings, their judgments and decrees may be reversed for that cause on a writ of error or appeal; but until reversed they are conclusive between the parties and their privies." "But they are not nullities." There has never been any departure from this rule.

It is said, however, that these decisions apply only to cases where the record simply fails to show jurisdiction. Here it is claimed that the record shows there could be no jurisdiction, because it appears affirmatively that the Navigation and Railroad Company, one of the defendants, was a citizen of the same State with the plaintiff. But the record shows, with equal distinctness, that all the parties were actually before the court, and made no objection to its jurisdiction. The act of 1867, under which the removal was had, provided that when a suit was pending in a state court "in which there is a controversy between a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought and a citizen of another State, . . . such citizen of another State, if he will make and file an affidavit stating that he has reason to and does believe that, from prejudice or local influence, he will not be able to obtain justice in such state court, may file a petition in such state court for the removal of the suit" into the Circuit Court of the United States, and, when all things have been done that the act requires, "it shall be the duty of the state court to proceed no further with the suit," and, after the record is entered in the Circuit Court, "the suit shall then proceed in the same manner as if it had been brought there by original process."

In the suit now under consideration there was a separate and distinct controversy between the plaintiff, a citizen of Iowa, and each of the citizens of New York, who were defendants. Each controversy related to the several tracts of land claimed by each defendant individually, and not as joint owner with the other defendants. Three of the citizens of New York caused to be made and filed the necessary affidavit and petition for removal, and thereupon, by common consent

Opinion of the Court.

apparently, the suit as an entirety was transferred to the Circuit Court for final adjudication as to all the parties. The plaintiff, as well as the defendants, appeared in the Circuit Court without objection, and that court proceeded as if its authority in the matter was complete. Whether in such a case the suit could be removed was a question for the Circuit Court to decide when it was called on to take jurisdiction. If it kept the case when it ought to have been remanded, or if it proceeded to adjudicate upon matters in dispute between two citizens of Iowa, when it ought to have confined itself to those between the citizens of Iowa and the citizens of New York, its final decree in the suit could have been reversed, on appeal, as erroneous, but the decree would not have been a nullity. To determine whether the suit was removable in whole or in part or not, was certainly within the power of the Circuit Court. The decision of that question was the exercise and the rightful exercise of jurisdiction, no matter whether in favor of or against taking the cause. Whether its decision was right, in this or any other respect, was to be finally determined by this court on appeal. As the Circuit Court entertained the suit, and this court, on appeal, impliedly recognized its right to do so, and proceeded to dispose of the case finally on its merits, certainly our decree cannot, in the light of prior adjudications on the same general question, be deemed a nullity. It was, at the time of the trial in the present case in the court below, a valid and subsisting prior adjudication of the matters in controversy, binding on these parties, and a bar to this action. In refusing so to decide, the court failed to give full faith and credit to the decree of this court under which the Navigation and Railroad Company claimed an immunity from all liability to the Homestead Company on account of the taxes sued for, and this was error.

For this reason, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion.

Opinion of the Court.

PLUMB v. GOODNOW'S ADMINISTRATOR.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA.

Argued November 1, 1887. - Decided December 5, 1887.

This case is reversed because the state court failed to give due faith and credit to the decree of this court in Homestead Company v. Valley Railroad, 17 Wall. 153.

THIS was an action to recover the amount of taxes paid on real estate in Iowa under circumstances similar in the main to those described in Stryker v. Goodnow, ante, 527. This cause was argued with that cause. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. C. H. Gatch for plaintiff in error. Mr. William Connor was with him on the brief.

Mr. George Crane for defendant in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

This is another suit brought by Edward K. Goodnow, assignee of the Iowa Homestead Company, to recover taxes paid on "Des Moines River Lands" for the years 1864 to 1871, both inclusive. For a general statement of the facts reference is made to Stryker v. Goodnow, ante, 527. Plumb, the plaintiff in error, was defendant below, and set up the prior adjudication in the suit of Homestead Company v. Valley Railroad, 17 Wall. 153, as a bar to the action. This defence was overruled, and a judgment given against him on the ground that he was not a party to that suit. Goodnow v. Plumbe, 64 Iowa, 672. The judgment was not only against Plumb personally, but it was made a special lien on the lands, which were the subject of taxation, because he was the actual owner at the time of the levy. The case was treated in all material respects the same as that of Litchfield v. Goodnow, ante, 549. In this there was error, in our opinion.

Opinion of the Court.

Edward Wade was a party to the suit as the apparent owner of the lands now in question, and which were properly described in the bill and included in the litigation. The record in this case shows that the lands were conveyed by the Navigation and Railroad Company to Plumb in 1859, and he, in 1861, conveyed them to Wade in trust as security for a debt he owed a bank. This deed was duly recorded in the proper recording office. In 1865 the lands were sold by Wade under his trust and conveyed to Edward Wesley, for the sole use and benefit of Plumb. This deed was not put on record before the suit of the Homestead Company was begun. As soon as Plumb heard of the suit he employed counsel, and had an answer filed in the name of Wade, setting up a defence to the claim of the company, and asserting that the superior title was in those who held under the river grant. He paid his proportion of the expenses of the litigation, and controlled the defence, so far as Wade was concerned. His interests in the suit were properly represented by Wade, whom he allowed to appear on the records of the county as the real owner of the lands. If there had been a decree against Wade for the taxes, and a lien therefor established on the lands, he would have been bound, and could not have resisted the enforcement of the lien. So, too, if a personal decree had been rendered against Wade for the money, it would have been conclusive in an action by Wade to recover from him money paid for his use in satisfaction of the decree. He was bound, because he was represented in the suit by Wade, under whom he claimed. This case is the converse of that of Litchfield v. Goodnow, ante, 549. There Mrs. Litchfield was not represented in the suit by any one who was a party, and, therefore, she could not claim the benefit of the decree. Here Plumb was represented by Wade, and he stands, consequently, as if he had been himself a party by name.

There were other questions in the case that might have been considered by the court below, but as they were not, and the decision was put entirely on the ground that Plumb was not a party to the decree which was pleaded in bar, we need not pass upon them here.

VOL. CXXIII-36