244 IEDEEAL REPORTEE. �opinion of Mr. Justice Curtis, as is manifest from a consideration of the head-notes to the case in his edition of the supreme court re- ports; for he professed to limit his head-notes to the exact points considered and actually decided by the court. Nor did the court con- sider it precisely the same aS that in Comstock v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 403 ; or as that in the very late case of Mohr v. Manierre, 101 U. S. 425. Nor the same point as that decided in Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 180, that the jurisdictional fact of citizenship determined in the national courts cannot be collaterally inquired into; that the deter- mination of that jurisdictional fact is conclusive. The court, there- fore, does not intend to touch these cases, nor the principles estab- lished by them. �Where, then, is the line of division? I apprehend it will be found by examining the case of Thompson v. Whit7nan,&nd the line of cases cited and commented on in that case, and comparing them with the other line of decisions cited in this decision, which were carefuily avoided by the court in its opinion. It will be found, on such exam- ination, that after a cause of action bas arisen — after the cause of action is complete — something must always be done by the court, through its executive or ministerial officers, or somebody else on behalf of the court, to give the court jurisdiction, either of the person, or, in a proceeding m rem, of the thing ; such as serving a summons in a cause at law, or subpœna in chancery, upon the person within the state, giving a notice in some prescribed place, mode, or form, or seizing the thing. To get jurisdiction of the person, he must not only be served with process, but he must be served within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, as within the same state. In such case service within the state is the jurisdictional fact to.be performed by, and upon the authority of, the court, through its ministerial ofScers, or other agencies of the court appointed by law. In some states, as in New York, the service may be by private parties ; but they act by the authority and on behalf of the court. In matters in rem there must be a seizure, and often some notice given to the parties in interest by the court in some prescribed mode. In such cases the seizure and notice are jurisdictional facts subsequent to, and wholly independent of, the cause of action, and of all pre-existing jurisdic- tional facts not depending upon the action of the court or its ap- pointed agencies. In Thompson v. Whitman the oiience was com- plete when the vessel engaged in gathering oysters within the waters of New Jersey eontrary to the statutes of that state. But the cause of action and forfeiture being complete, it was necessary to seize the ��� �
