Response or Comment
The advance sheets of the Northwestern Reporter for January 29th, 1915, contain two cases in which a supreme court declared proceedings that had been carried through to judgment void, (not merely voidable) because of the lack of a fact which the supreme court regarded as jurisdictional, (Sandusky Grain Co. v. Sanilac Circuit Judge (Mich. 1915), 150 N. W. 329 and Bombolis v. Minn. & St. L. R. Co. (Minn. 1914), 150 N. W. 385), and another case in which the court was equally divided as to whether the essential facts appeared (Fisher et al v. Gardnier et al. (Mich. 1915), 150 N. W. 358). Of course, it was not suspected by anyone when any of these cases was on trial in the first instance that there was any question as to jurisdiction, nor was there doubt that the judgment when rendered was valid and concluded the controversy; and in every one of them, as in nearly all such cases, relief from any real hardship could have been had by direct proceedings to vacate the objectionable judgment.
Rood, John R. "Jurisdictional Facts." Mich. L. Rev. 13 (1915): 403-7.