Opinion of the court. then, as this conveyance by the bank to the trustees affected the liability of these lands to judicial sale for the debts of the bank, it left them in precisely the same condition they were before, and this whether the deed to Campbell is to be construed as a passive or an active trust, and the title of the bank under it a legal or an equitable one. It must, therefore, be taken as established that the land in question was liable to be subjected to judicial sale for the debts of the bank, and the only remaining question concerns the validity of the proceeding under which this was attempted. Most of the objections urged under this head relate to the regularity of those proceedings, and many errors are pointed out which are supposed to affect the title acquired under them. But the doctrine of this court, and of all the courts of this country, is firmly established, that if the court in which the proceedings took place had jurisdiction to render the judgment which it did, no error in its proceedings which did not affect the jurisdiction will render the proceeding void; nor can such errors be considered when the judgment is brought collaterally into question. With this cardinal principle in mind many of the alleged errors in the proceeding under the attachment must be disregarded. There can be no question of the right of the legislature of Wisconsin to pass such laws as will subject property within her territory, held or owned by non-residents, to the payment of the debts of such owners; and the manner of doing this is also entirely within legislative control, provided it does. not violate some of the provisions of the Federal or State constitutions. The court in which these proceedings were had was a court of general jurisdiction, and had undoubted authority to attach the property of the bank for the payment of its debts, and every presumption must be made in favor of the validity of its proceeding not inconsistent with the record. We will, however, notice a few of the alleged errors which are supposed to touch the point of the court's jurisdiction. 1. It is said that the bank was dead in law, and that as Opinion of the court. the suit was instituted against the bank by name, no jurisdiction was acquired. It is by no means certain that the bank had no capacity to sustain a suit, notwithstanding the expiration of its charter and the transfer of its property to trustees. But, however this may be, those very trustees, in whom plaintiff claims that the title was vested, and from whom he derives title by deed, appeared to this suit and moved to dissolve the attachment, and the bank appeared by attorney and defended the suit. Both must then be bound by these proceedings, and neither can deny a jurisdiction to which they voluntarily submitted. 2. The legislature of Wisconsin had made provision by special statute for a case in which a bank, whose functions had ceased, but which yet owned property and owed debts in Wisconsin, might be sued and the property subjected to the payment of those debts. The constitutionality of this act is denied; but no provision of the constitution of Wisconsin or of the United States is pointed out which is opposed to such legislation. It would, on the contrary, be a strange defect in the legislative power if, under such circumstances, a State could not frame laws which would enable her citizens to subject the lands of a corporation whose charter had expired to the debts which it owed to her citizens. 3. It is said that the judgment under which this sale was made was reversed, and this is true. But the sale was made while the judgment was in force to one who was no party to the suit, and the reversal of the judgment could not, as is well settled, affect the purchaser. 4. It is said the sale was void because made under an execution which had no seal. The court from which the execution issued permitted it to be amended after sale by affixing a seal. Whether the sale would have been void without the seal, and whether the amendment was rightfully made, were questions of Wisconsin law, and this and all other such questions were decided in favor of the sale by the Wisconsin court on motion to set aside the sale. That decision must control us as to all that concerns the regularity of these proceedings. Statement of the case. As we have examined all that can be said to affect the jurisdiction of the court and the aathority of the officer to make the sale, we need inquire no further. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. HAVER V. YAKER. Although it is true, as a principle of international law, that, as respects the rights of either government under it, a treaty is considered as concluded and binding from the date of its signature, and that in this regard the exchange of ratifications has a retroactive effect, confirming the treaty from its date; a different rule prevails where the treaty operates on individual rights. There the principle of relation does not apply to rights of this character which were vested before the treaty was ratified, and in so far as it affects them it is not considered as concluded until there is an exchange of ratifications. ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky; the case being thus: One Yaker, a Swiss by birth, who had come many years ago to the United States and become a naturalized citizen thereof, died in Kentucky in 1853, intestate, seized of real estate there. He left a widow, who was a resident and citizen of Kentucky, and certain heirs and next of kin, aliens and residents in Switzerland. By the laws of Kentucky in force in 1853, the date of his death, aliens were not allowed to inherit real estate except under certain conditions, within which Yaker's heirs did not come, and if the matter was to depend on those laws, the widow was, by the laws then in force in Kentucky, plainly entitled to the estate. However, in 1850, a treaty was "concluded and signed" by the respective plenipotentiaries of the two countries, between the Swiss Confederation and the United States,* upon the proper construction of which, as Yaker's heirs assertedalthough the widow denied that the construction put upon * 11 Stat. at Large, 587. Argument for the plaintiff in error. the treaty by the heirs was a right one-these heirs were entitled to take and hold the estate. The treaty provided by its terms that it should be submitted on both sides to the approval and ratification of the respective competent authorities of each contracting party, and that the ratifications should be exchanged at Washington as soon as circumstances should admit. It was so submitted, but was not duly ratified, nor were the respective ratifications exchanged in Washington till November 8th, 1855, at which time the ratification and exchange was made. And on the next day the President, by proclamation-the treaty having been altered in the Senate-made the treaty public. In 1859 the Swiss heirs, who had apparently not heard before of their kinsman's death, instituted proceedings to have the real estate of their kinsman, now in possession of the widow, assigned to them, and arguing that on a right construction of the treaty it was theirs. But a preliminary question, and in case of one resolution of it, a conclusive objection to their claim was here raised; the question, namely, at what time the treaty of 1850-55, as it regarded private rights, became a law. Was it when it bore date, or was it only when the ratifications were exchanged between the parties to it? If not until it was ratified, then there was no necessity of deciding whether by its terms the heirs of Yaker had any just claim to this real estate, because in no aspect of the case could the treaty have a retroactive effect so as to defeat the title of the widow, which vested in her, by the law of Kentucky of 1853, on the death of her husband. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky, where the heirs set up the treaty as a basis of their title, decided that it took effect only when ratified, and so deciding against their claim, the case was now here for review under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. Messrs. Carlisle and McPherson, for the heirs, citing Kent's Commentaries,* and United States v. Reynes,† in this court, Opinion of the court. contended that a treaty binds the contracting parties from its conclusion; and that this is understood to be from the day it is signed. If that view was right, the treaty was operative at the date of Yaker's death, and as they argued carried the estate to the heirs. Mr. Montgomery Blair, contra; a brief of Messrs. Porter and Beck being filed on the same side, argued that while the position of the other side might be admitted so far as respected the contracting governments, the position was not true as respected private rights. And this for a good reason. For that with us a treaty must be agreed to by the Senate, and this in secret session, before it becomes a law. While before the Senate it may be amended and largely altered. This particular treaty, the President's proclamation shows, was amended, and for aught that appears to the contrary, the very article upon which the heirs of Yaker now found their claim, may have been the only amendment made, and it may have been inserted long after Yaker's death and the accrual of the widow's rights. If this view is right we need not inquire into the meaning of the treaty. Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court. It is undoubtedly true, as a principle of international law, that, as respects the rights of either government under it, a treaty is considered as concluded and binding from the date of its signature. In this regard the exchange of ratifications. has a retroactive effect, confirming the treaty from its date.* But a different rule prevails where the treaty operates on individual rights. The principle of relation does not apply to rights of this character, which were vested before the treaty was ratified. In so far as it affects them, it is not considered as concluded until there is an exchange of ratifications, and this we understand to have been decided by this court, in Arredondo's case, reported in 6th Peters.† The reason of * Wheaton's International Law, by Dana, 336, bottom paging. |