3 42 FEDERAL REPORTER.,
.ab0de, when the return did not show that the defendant could not be
V foundywas `invalid, and the judgment by default taken thereon null and
` void. f 4
_ In delivering the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice FIELD said: " The
V inability of the oiiicer to find the defendant was not a fact to be inferred,
but afact to be aiiirmatively stated in his »return." To the same effect
is the ruling in Trullengcrv. Todd, .5 Or. 39. Q
In Earlev. McVeigh, 91'U. U. 503, it was held that where during the
· , absence of a person and his family a statute authorized the notice of a
suit against him to be posted uponthe front door of his "usual place of
abode," thata notice so posted -seven months after the house had been
vacated byhthe defendant and his family, was not posted on his " usual
place of abode," and a judgment founded thereon was absolutely void.
The court says:   A i
f‘By the expression.•.the·usua1 placeof abode’ the law does not mean the
_ last place of abode; for a. party may-change his place of abode every month in
the year. Instead of that, it is only on the door of his then presentresidence
where the‘notice`may be posted, and constitute a compliance with the legal
requirement." A • ` ` ’ · `
In these. cases, the question of the validity of the service sometimes
arose on a direct proceeding, and inothers collaterally,`but in. all alike
it was held that, the same beinginsuflicient, the court acquired no juris-
A idictionthereby, and its judgment thereon was null and void. ,» .
In none of them, however, but Earle v. Mc Veigh, was therecord con-
cerning the service contradicted by extraneous evidence; Wand in that case
· the proceedingwas a suit in equity to set aside the judgment. In all
the rest,it,was—determined on the face of the record, that the service was
invalid. i In my judgment, where it is sought tqcontradict the record
concerninglany jurisdictional m`atter,it should. only be done ‘by a suitin
equity, on proper allegation and `proof, in which the court, in granting
the relief prayed for, may make such conditions in favor of an innocent
purchaser, who invested his money on the faith of a record showing ju-
risdiction in the court, as may be possible and proper.   l
‘ · ·_ But a purchaser at a sale ofrexeoution issued on judgment or decree
. `taken by default, where the record does not show j urisdiction in the court
over the subject, and notice to the defendant, has no equity in the prem-
ises as against the true owner. He is the victim of his own folly or neg-
ligence. .;;_ - _ Y —
After a court has acquired jurisdiction by a proper service of process
Aon the defendant, any error in its proceeding cannot be questioned col-
, laterally; but until jurisdiction is acquired, its judgment may be ques-
tioned and held for naught in a collateral as well as a direct proceeding.
The onlyauthority cited in favor, of the sufficiency of the service in
question is Healey v. Butler, 66 Wis. 9, 27 N. W. Rep. 822, inwhich a
similar service of a summons was held good. The return stated that
the summonswas served on thedefendant in Clark county at his last
and usual placeofabode therein. _ The court said the words "last and"
were superiiuous, and then arbitrarily construed the return, as if it