20 FEDERAL nmrorvrnn.
but one step in the procedure. A defect in that step may be ground
for reversal, but is it fatal to the jurisdiction? In some states a prmcipe
is required before summons can issue. Suppose, without przcipe, a
summons is issued and served, would not the court have jurisdiction,
notwithstanding the error in the procedure? So, here, the publication
is the service, while the amdavit is only one step preliminary to the
publication,—the service. I do not mean to hold that a publication
without atlidavit, or one without affidavit in the form required by the A
statute, would be suiiicient to bring the defendant into court. That
question is not in the case. All that’I hold is that where the publica-
tion is beyond question, and the atiidavit in the tbrm required, a mis-
take like the one in question does not defeat the jurisdiction. Further,
when the case came on for findings and decree, the record shows that
the court found that service had been duly made, as appears from the
following: " Due proof of the service of the summons therein, upon all of
the defendants therein, having been made and filed, whereby it appears
to the satisfaction of the court that said summons has been duly served
upon all said defendants in the manner following, to-wit, by publication
thereof, and bymailing a copy of the same to each of them at their re-
spective places of abode, duly inclosed, directed, sealed, and postage pre-
paid." Can the truth of this finding be now challenged collaterally?
With regard to the last objection, it may be that the plaintiff was ignorant
of any equity claimed by defendant under the Van Valkenburg sale, and
it may also be, as heretofore suggested, that defendant really took nothing
thereby. Be that as it may, and while no reference is in terms made in
the complaint to that sale, or any rights thereunder, yet the language is
broad enough to call upon defendants to` disclose all rights, equities, and
claims. The allegation is: "PlaintiH' further shows that the defendants
have, or claim to have, some claim or interest in or lien upon said mort-
gaged premises, as owners of the equity of redemption thereof, which
interest or lien, if any, is subsequent and subject to the lien of said mort- I
gage of plaintiff'; that no personal claim is made against any defendant."
The prayer is "that the defendants, and all persons claiming under them,
or either of them, subsequent to the commencement of this action, may
. be foreclosed of all equity of redemption and other interest in said mort-
gaged premises." And the decree is "that, upon the expiration of one V
year from the date of the order of connrmation of such sale, said pur- »
chaser or his assigns shall, upon application to the court, be entitled to
a final decree herein, adjudging that the title to all such of said mortgaged
premises as shall have been so sold and not redeemed is in such pur-
chaser or his assigns, free and clear of all equity of redemption on the
part of said defendants, or any and all persons claiming through or under
them." Surely, language could not be more sweeping and comprehen-
sive than this. The defendant is challenged to disclose any equity or
claim, and the decree cuts oi}` all equity, and not the single equity under
the bond. My conclusion, therefore, is that the complainant has no
equity of redemption, and that the bill must be dismissed.,
I may be permitted to add that this is one of those suits which ought