Show the habeas corpus case decided YOUNG discharged from fron CUSTODY this morning in third district court chief chiet justice white delivered dellyer deliver er ed the following decision territory of 1 cit chy ot f salt palt lake county ol 01 silt slit lake I 1 J nov TO 17 ia 5 brigham va young toung aites at aled alex chambers white bero chiet chief re george K maxwell justice tome toma of me court of utah this case comes before the court upon a writ of habeas corpus sued suede out upon the of brigham young claiming chat he is uj unjustly impH imprisoned and deprived of hig his liberty in said county and territory by george R maxwell united unified states marshal for said territory on the charge of a contempt of court by a warrant of commitment a copy of which ia it attached to the pe petition as exhibit A the petition presents in exhibits attached to the pleadings au an order of the district court of the third judicial district of the territory of utah in a case of bill for divorce by ann eilza eliza young vs brigham young as the authority under will which 11 petitioner is imprisoned and held by said paid united states Al marshal arshal the marshal returns to the writ of habeas corpus that ho he holds the defendant in custody by virtue and authority of an order of said court in said cause a copy of which is attached to exhibit A to tile the petition and is dated the of october among other grounds on which the r petitioner pr prays avs ays to bo be released from said imprisonment in it is alleged that the order of commitment of the fath of october 1875 Js void because the district court of ae the third judicial district had no ho jurisdiction over the subject matt matter erat ernt at the time the tle order was made for the reason that tho the same matters had been duly presented by the parties and submitted to the court at a former term of the court and the court had rendered a a decree at eaid raid former term refusing tho the motion for an attachment and discharging the ruloff show cau eau IQ e why the defendant should not be committed for fona fora a contempt of court in having disregarded tho 0 order and deer decree ca of the court to pay alimony ilen pen dente tite lite iud lud to the B milza ilza liza a young 1 A judgment of a court coart of or compo competent tent jurisdiction when collaterally a ass ays assailed failed A ailed can cau only bo be impeached for a want of power in the court to render the tho judgment tho the record may abound in irregularities and erro errors rl yet if the tho court I 1 had a d J jurisdiction u r Is d the ju judgment d g is valid and bi binding until by bome homo direct proc proe proceeding ceding by api esl val or otherwise instituted for the purpose the judgment is brought before some tribunal and by the judgment of such revising court is revised set aside or annulled the propriety of the decree and order of the district cour court t of the of oct 1875 can cannat adt b be e questioned or considered by th this s court further than to investigate and determine whether the court had jurisdiction over the subject and we the parties so far as relates to the subject matter in other words over the ca presented to ana and adjudicated by it the jurisdiction must be over both the person and the subject matter if either of these jurisdictional ti onal facts is manting ranting then the tho sentence or decree is void in such case the whole proceeding is cor am non judice and it may be successfully resisted in that or in any other court by either direct or collateral proceeding campbell and others othera vs Mc mccahan cahan Caban 41 ili lii 49 elliot vs Pear pearson bearson son sou 1 peters a court has power overita over its own proceedings and can alter modify annul its judgments orders and decrees a in its judicial discretion ia ii consistent with the law and th the cadvan advancement cement of justice but when by order of court or operation of law the term of a court is closed the court has no further power over its proceedings they can only be aff reached or ordis disturbed by an appellate or revising court or perhaps in rare cases impeached by bill in chancery for fraud it is insa insl insisted isted by the counsel for the petitioner that this question of or contempt on his part for disobedience to the order of the court decreeing the paying of alimony pendente pen dente life lite to the plaintiff an ann ii eliza young made on the of feb 1875 has been passed upon and adjudicated by the court in the decree of of may 1875 and that the term of court having elapsed the district court had rio no power to adjudicate re that question on the part odthe of the defendant it ift is urged that the order of the loth of may was a mere more interlocutory or ori orl i der and one that might be reviewed so long as the decree granting grant fad lad all alii mony pendente pen denge dente dite life and ordering ils its payment remained un complied with whenever upon proper predicate it was pressed upon tue the con coa of the court it is further urged by the defendant that the matters adjudicated on the loth of may and those a adjudicated udica udlea ted by the court on the h 0 October 1 wor wore were not the same but d different I 1 and i that the judgment bof of the t he court on oil the loth of may did not preclude the court on the of oct fram adjudicating upon the matters mattefs thep passed upon by ft it the order of the loth may was wag as an order in the cause made after the filing of the bill and before final decree and in that view it wm way bil sin interlocutory ter ordering order ln the common acceptation cep tation of the term interlocutory orders usually are mere merd oy orders ders in advancement of the cause and neb necessary ia in the preparation of it for a esary ejary ninal final 1 I hearing and decree but jut there are interlocutory orders which are final in their character and which settle rights as conclusively as the final finai judgment and decree the order of the court of oi of february 1875 settling the right of plaintiff to alimony tite lite and the amount of that aalmo alimony was wag a judgment of the court t upon botn both of those questions and was final finai and conclusive upon the me district court after the adjournment of the term of court the court had bad decided the question and given judgment and what more could il doo do would it be contended that it could decide the question and give ju judgment g ment again if BO 60 when would u ad repetition the f ouid give no additional force to t 0 its ts mandate to render the same bame judgment 0 a second time or oftener or if it re rendered different judgments tsat fat lat different times in reference ence enee to the same subject matter the question would then be which was the judgment of the court I 1 thera there cannot be a question but that that order orde of the 2 of feb 1875 was an order settling rl rights bag consummating tho ehid end proposed propose d closing the controversy as t to the subject matter and that su befar I 1 fkr far as hs the district court was concerned it was final and conclusive that the order of the loth of may is not equally clear as a ninal final order grows rather out of the indefiniteness of the subject matter than any inherent uncertainty or want of binding force in the order the rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue and why the defendant should not be committed for a contempt for dl disobedience of the order of court is i the mode provided by law to the court for the enforcement of its decree the decree could not bo be enforced by execution because became the case was in ficai and no execution could issue until final judgment g nut but the law in providing this extreme and summary modo in enforcing obedience to the mandate of the court gives to the de fondant an opportunity to show cause why the motion prayed for fur should not be granted and upon hi answer an issue is made up and presented to the court for its deci nand of the court on the issue thus presented has the tho binding fl force norce orce oree and of any other judgment the court tries the issue determines tile the facts applies the law and renders ren ron deral derai judgment the charge which is alleged usually in such cases is that the defendant has been guilty of contempt of court this is the only matter presented the issuance of an attachment or commitment for a contempt la Is a it summary mode of punishment adopted by the court for the contempt and as the means employed for th the enforcement of its interlocutory decree they do not in any sense or degree constitute or enter into the issue which is tried by the court upon a rule to the defendant to show cause why an attachment should not issue or why he should not be committed for con contempt if in such a case the defendant shows good cause then the judgment of the court is that lio he bo be discharged and in a the iari lari language guage of the old books that he go hence bence without day if he fall fail to show cause then the judgment of the court is that he be attached or committed as to the court seems meet until he comply with the order of the court or otherwise purge himl hime himself geif self of the contempt I 1 n this thib view vl w ot 0 the ahe question oi it will wili be rea readily dily dlly seen been ee that the issue which was presented to and determined by the court on the loth day of may and the me issue which was presented to and determined by the court coart OB on the esth day asly of october 1875 was the bame same IE it thero there were room for doubt as to ta the correctness of the tho conclusion it Is input put to rest by the record offered in evi etl evidence dence deuce by both parties jilk ji both motions the parties are the same and aud the subject matter la Is the teg same in both tho the affidavits are maae made by the samme bamme person acting g in the same capacity and aud the affidavits and motions are substantially stant lally ly the same both charge a contempt of court consisting of a disobedience of the same earne order and both seek a commitment of the defendant for bach each cont contempt crupt the judgment of the loth of slay alay 1875 discharges the defendant from the cou con contempt tempt in disobedience to the tho order of february r 1875 requiring lim lira to ply pay to the plaintiff alimony pendente pen dente dents lite and the judgment of the 1 doth 13 th of october cammila mm nini to to prison contempt fur of court in fallin falling to pay the identical alimony pend pendente pea pen dente nite lite not possible legitimately and logically to coma come co M Q to any other than that the issue which was presented and passed uron upon by the court on the loth lolli of may blay and tho the lue presented and named passed apon by the court on the coth of october were and that the sub both A matlou la 16 refund when the effect of tho b motion 11 oti 1 3 moved for to vacate a tiel albl stia raja would havo have been heen b en to review a lad lud ment munt on motion after tho term tarba m making akin tho the motion per perform forin tho officio of MI pu appeal hartshorn asi lloil wanice IL 11 it co 23 wis the conclusion of me tho court ie Is mat the judgment of the court of the loth of may lay S 5 vias lias s lna final linal ina au and d conclusive upon he le question of the right of the plaintiff to a commitment m tt of the defendant aill atil young fora contempt of court in falling td 10 comply with the order of court of 2001 2601 of or Feb february tilary illary 1375 to pay the plaintiff alimony lite and that upon upun the vie adjournment ok ol 01 the term oi of acourt it seame became res adjudicate a beyond the power nowen of the district court r rom row this it follows that the order of the in strict district court of the 1 wath of october 1875 was wah coram oram tion von indio andio and aud void and that the pet petitioner lUoner id la wrongfully imprisoned aud and be disc dise discharged barged |