Opinion of the Court.

liminary proceeding or judicial action, as provided in sections twenty-two and twenty-three in regard to liquors so unlawfully kept and deposited. So far from the argument being well founded that because the provisions of the twenty-second and twenty-third sections were not expressly repeated in the twenty-fifth, it was to be inferred that they were dispensed with, the provision that liquors in transit might be seized and proceeded against as if "unlawfully kept and deposited in any place," made them a part of the section by reference, and it was in accordance with those sections that such property could be condemned; and that that involved here was turned over by petitioner to the sheriff of Charleston County. The duties of a constable were under section twenty-four to notify the circuit solicitor of the violation of any of the provisions of the act under section twenty-four, and under section twenty-two, if the existence of the nuisance therein mentioned were established either in a criminal or equitable action, he might be directed to abate the place by taking possession thereof. Certainly, seizure by him without warrant or judicial action was not expressly authorized by the statute nor by implication upon any canon of construction applicable to an act creating offences unknown to the common law and authorizing confiscation.

It is insisted that the Circuit Court was in error in the views it entertained and the conclusion reached in accordance therewith. But this objection is of error merely, and does not go to the power of the court in the premises. Judgments of courts, whether Federal or state, cannot be treated as void and attacked collaterally on habeas corpus, even if error has actually supervened.

It must be remembered that this property was in the custody of the officer of the court; that it had been brought into the State before the act went into operation; that it had not been delivered because of imperfect address; that there was no concealment and no occasion for haste; and that there was no difficulty in the way of application to the court, to have the goods detained or for permission to withdraw them from the receiver's possession. Nothing can Nothing can be clearer than that

Opinion of the Court.

the court had jurisdiction to determine whether the goods were retained in violation of the laws of the State; whether the receiver in conducting the business of the railroad in respect of the transportation of this barrel was proceeding "according to the valid laws of the State" as provided by the second section of the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, (24 Stat. 552, c. 373,) and whether the seizure was authorized by any law of the State.

The possession of property by the judicial department, whether Federal or state, cannot be arbitrarily encroached upon without violating the fundamental principle, which requires coördinate departments to refrain from interference with the independence of each other, In re Tyler, Petitioner, 149 U. S. 164, and the position that a petty officer can take property from the possession of a court without permission and without warrant, "upon his own motion and without instructions from any other person," as petitioner admits he did, because in his view the duty is imposed upon him by a particular statute, and that the court is without power to pass upon the questions involved, or, if it does so, that its judgment may be treated with contemptuous defiance, is utterly inadmissible in any community assuming to be governed by law.

We entertain no doubt whatever that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and it necessarily follows that its determination that the action of the constable was illegal, and that he was in contempt in seizing and persisting in holding the property, is not open to review in this proceeding.

2. It is further contended that the court exceeded its power in that the payment of costs was required, because the costs were in the nature of a fine, and therefore the punishment inflicted was both fine and imprisonment. Under section 970 of the Revised Statutes, when judgment is rendered against a defendant in a prosecution for any fine or forfeiture, he shall be subject to the payment of costs, and on every conviction for any other offence, not capital, the court may in its discretion award that the defendant shall pay the costs of the prosecution; and as contempt of court is a specific criminal offence, it is said that the judgment for payment of costs

Syllabus.

would appear to be within the power of the court, although by section 725 it is provided that contempts, of the authority of courts of the United States may be punished "by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court." But be that as it may, the sentence here was that the petitioner be imprisoned "until he returns to the custody of the receiver, the barrel taken by him from the warehouse without warrant of law. And when that has been surrendered, that he suffer a further imprisonment thereafter in said county jail for three months. and until he pay the costs of these proceedings." As the prisoner has neither restored the goods nor suffered the imprisonment for three months, even if it was not within the power of the court to require payment of costs and its judgment to that extent exceeded its authority, yet he cannot be discharged on habeas corpus until he has performed so much of the judgment or served out so much of the sentence as it was within the power of the court to impose. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18.

The application for the writ of habeas corpus is denied.

In re HOHORST, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL.

No. 7. Original. Argued November 14, 1893. - Decided December 18, 1893.

In the act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, giving the Circuit Courts of the United States original jurisdiction, "concurrent with the courts of the several States," of all suits of a civil nature, in which the matter in dispute exceeds $2000 in amount or value, "arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States" or in which there is a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects," the provision that "no civil suit shall be brought against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant," is inapplicable to an alien or a foreign corporation sued here, and especially in a suit for the infringement of a patent right; and such a person or corporation

Statement of the Case.

may be sued by a citizen of a State of the Union in any district in which valid service can be made upon the defendant.

It is a sufficient service of a subpœna upon a foreign steamship company, which has within the district no officer, and no agent expressly authorized to accept service, to serve it upon its financial agent, at his office, at which the financial and monetary business of the company in this country is transacted, and which has been advertised by the company as its own office; although the docks of the company, where its steamships land and take and discharge cargo, and its office for the transaction of matters connected with its actual industrial operations in this country, are in another district.

If a suit brought in the Circuit Court of the United States against a foreign corporation and against individuals is erroneously dismissed as against the corporation for want of jurisdiction thereof, mandamus lies to compel that court to take jurisdiction of the suit as against the corporation. And when an appeal, taken by the plaintiff to this court within six weeks from the order of dismissal, remains upon the docket, without any motion by the appellee to dismiss it, until the case is reached for argument, and is then dismissed by the court for want of jurisdiction, and the plaintiff, within five weeks afterward, applies for a writ of mandamus, there is no such laches as should deprive him of this remedy.

THIS was a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to command them to take jurisdiction. and proceed against the Hamburg-American Packet Company upon a bill in equity, filed in that court on September 15, 1888, by the petitioner, described in the bill as of the city of New York, and a citizen of the State of New York against "the Hamburg-American Packet Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Kingdom of Hanover, Empire of Germany, and doing business in the city of New York; Henry R. Kunhardt, Sr., Henry R. Kunhardt, Jr., George H. Diehl, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of New York, and Arend Behrens and William Koester, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of New Jersey;" for the infringement by all the defendants of letters patent granted by the United States to the plaintiff for an improvement in slings for packages. Upon that bill the following proceedings took place :

A subpoena was issued, addressed to all the defendants, and was served on September 17, 1888, as stated in the marshal's

Statement of the Case.

return thereon, "upon the within named defendant, Henry R. Kunhardt, Sr., by exhibiting to him the within original, and at the same time leaving with him a copy thereof;" and "upon the within named defendant, Hamburg-American Packet Company, by exhibiting to Henry R. Kunhardt, Sr., general agent for said company, the within original, and at the same time leaving with him a copy thereof."

On November 5, 1888, the return day of the subpoena, a general appearance for all the defendants was entered by a solicitor.

On December 18, 1888, the company, "by Kunhardt & Co., agents," filed a demurrer to the bill, for multifariousness, for want of equity," and for divers other good causes of demurrer appearing in the said bill of complaint" and not otherwise specified; and supported the demurrer by the affidavit of Behrens, that he was an agent of the company, that the demurrer was not interposed for delay, and that he was duly authorized to make the affidavit in behalf of the company.

On December 24, 1888, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend his bill, by alleging that the defendants jointly infringed his patent; and "that all of the defendants above named are inhabitants of the city and county of New York; that the defendant, the Hamburg-American Packet Company, has its principal business office in this country located in the city and county of New York; that the defendants Henry R. Kunhardt, Sr., Henry R. Kunhardt, Jr., George H. Diehl, Arend Behrens and William Koester are, and during the time of the infringement above set forth were, copartners under the firm name of Kunhardt & Company, and as such copartners are and were the agents and managers of the business of the HamburgAmerican Packet Company in this country, and have their principal business office as such located in the city and county of New York; and that the said infringements were committed in the prosecution of such business, and all the defendants have coöperated and participated in all the said acts and infringements."

An affidavit of Behrens, filed in opposition to this motion, contained the following statements: "I do not regard it as