Afterwards in a contest arising between the parties as to the right of possession of the property, the decree was pleaded as a source of title in the wife, but it was held that that portion of the decree which set off the homestead to the wife was absolutely void and subject to collateral attack, for the reason that no jurisdiction was given to the District Court in a divorce proceeding to award the husband's real estate to the wife in fee as alimony. The courts of this State in divorce proceedings must look for their authority to the statute, and so far as they attempt to act in excess of the powers therein granted their action is void and subject to collateral attack. A judgment or decree of the nature of the Washington decree, so far as affects the real estate, if rendered by the courts of this State would be void.

"The decree is inoperative to affect the title to the Nebraska land and is given no binding force or effect so far as the courts of this State are concerned, by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States with reference to full faith and credit. Since the decree upon which the plaintiff bases her right to recover did not affect the title to the land it remained in E. W. Fall until divested by operation of law or by his voluntary act. He has parted with it to Elizabeth Eastin and whether any consideration was ever paid for it or not is immaterial so far as the plaintiff is concerned, for she is in no position to question the transaction, whatever a creditor of Fall might be able to do."

It is somewhat difficult to state precisely and succinctly wherein plaintiff disagrees with the conclusions of the Supreme Court. Counsel says:

"It is not claimed that the Washington court could create an equity in lands in Nebraska by any finding or decree it might make, and thus bind the courts of a sister State; but it is claimed that where rights and equities already exist, the parties being within the jurisdiction of the court, it can divide them and apportion them by a judgment or decree which

would be conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent proceeding in a court having jurisdiction of the lands, for the purpose of quieting the title in the equitable owner."

If we may regard this as not expressing a complete opposition to the views of the Supreme Court, we must at least treat it as contradicting their fundamental principle, that is, that the decree as such has no extraterritorial operation.

The territorial limitation of the jurisdiction of courts of a State over property in another State has a limited exception in the jurisdiction of a court of equity, but it is an exception well defined. A court of equity having authority to act upon the person may indirectly act upon real estate in another State, through the instrumentality of this authority over the person. Whatever it may do through the party it may do to give effect to its decree respecting property, whether it goes to the entire disposition of it or only to effect it with liens or burdens. Story on Conflict of Laws, § 544. In French, Trustee, v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250, 252, this court said that a court of equity having jurisdiction in personam has power to require a defendant "to do or to refrain from doing anything beyond the limits of its territorial jurisdiction which it might have required to be done or omitted within the limits of such territory." The extent of this power this court has also defined. Watts et al. v. Waddle et al., 6 Pet. 389, has features like the case at bar. The suit was for the specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of land. It became necessary to pass upon the effect of a decree requiring the conveyance of the lands concerned. The decree appointed a commissioner under a statute of the State to make the conveyance in case the defendants or any of them failed to make the conveyance. This court said: "A decree cannot operate beyond the State in which the jurisdiction is exercised. It is not in the power of one State to prescribe the mode by which real property shall be conveyed in another. This principle is too clear to admit of doubt." In reply to the contention that the deed of the commissioner was a legal conveyance, it was said: "The deed executed by the commissioner in this case

must be considered as forming part of the proceedings in the court of chancery, and no greater effect can be given to it than if the decree itself, by statute, was made to operate as a conveyance in Kentucky as it does in Ohio."

In Watkins v. Holman et al., 16 Pet. 25, 57, passing on a decree made by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts by virtue of a statute of that State, it was said:

"No principle is better established than that the disposition of real estate, whether by deed, descent or by any other inode, must be governed by the law of the State where the land is situated."

And further:

"A court of chancery, acting in personam, may well decree the conveyance of land in any other State, and may well enforce its decree by process against the defendant. But neither the decree itself nor any conveyance under it, except by the person in whom the title is vested, can operate beyond the jurisdiction of the court."

See, also, Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148, and Miller v. Sherry, 2 Wall. 237, 248, 249.

In Corbett v. Nutt, 10 Wall. 464, 475, the doctrine was repeated that a court of equity acting upon the person of the defendant may decree a conveyance of land situated in another jurisdiction, and even in a foreign country, and enforce the execution of the decree by process against the defendant, but, it was said: "Neither its decree nor any conveyance under it, except by the party in whom the title is vested, is of any efficacy beyond the jurisdiction of the court." This, the court declared, was familiar law, citing Watkins v. Holman, supra. See, also, Brine v. Insurance Company, 96 U. S. 627, 635; Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U. S. 308.

In Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 177, 245, it is said that a commissioner is in no sense an agent of the party, but is an officer of the court, and acts strictly under its authority.

Later cases assert the same doctrine. In Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U. S. 87, 105, a court of New York had declared a

deed for real estate situate in Tennessee null and void. This court said to concede such power would be "to attribute to that decree the force and effect of a judgment in rem by a court having no jurisdiction over the res." And, explaining the power of a court of equity, said that "by means of its power over the person of a party a court of equity may in a proper case compel him to act in relation to property not within the jurisdiction, its decree does not operate directly upon the property nor affect the title, but it is made effectual through the coercion of the defendant, as, for instance, by directing a 'deed to be executed or canceled by or on behalf of the party. The court has no inherent power by' the mere force of its decree to annul a deed or to establish a title. Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 151, 155."

Whether the doctrine that a decree of a court rendered in consummation of equities, or the deed of a master under it, will not convey title, and that the deed of a party coerced by the decree will have such effect is illogical or inconsequent, we need not inquire nor consider whether the other view would not more completely fulfill the Constitution of the United States, and that whatever may be done between the parties in one State may be adjudged to be done by the courts of another, and that the decree might be regarded to have the same legal effect as the act of the party which was ordered to be done. The policy of a State would not be violated. Besides, this court found no impediment in the policy of a State in the way of enforcing, under the due faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States, a judgment obtained in Missouri, sued upon in Mississippi. The defense was that the cause of action arose in Mississippi and was one that the courts of the State, under its laws, were forbidden to enforce. The defense was adjudged good by the Supreme Court of Mississippi and its judgment was reversed by this court. Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U. S. 230.

In Hart v. Sansom, supra, it was directly recognized that it was within the power of the State in which the land lies to

provide, by statute, that if the defendant is not found within the jurisdiction, or refuses to perform, performance in his behalf may be had by a trustee appointed by the court for that purpose.

In Dull v. Blackman, 169 U. S. 243, 246, 247, while recognizing that litigation in regard to the title of land belongs to the courts of the State where the land is so located, it was said, "although if all the parties interested in the land were brought personally before a court of another State, its decree would be conclusive upon them, and thus, in effect, determine the title."

But, however plausibly the contrary view may be sustained, we think that the doctrine that the court, not having jurisdiction of the res, cannot affect it by its decree, nor by a deed made by a master in accordance with the decree, is firmly established. The embarrassment which sometimes results from it has been obviated by legislation in many States. In some States the decree is made to operate per se as a source of title. This operation is given a decree in Nebraska. In other States power is given to certain officers to carry the decree into effect. Such power is given in Washington to commissioners appointed by the court. It was in pursuance of this power that the deed in the suit at bar was executed. But this legislation does not affect the doctrine which we have expressed, which rests, as we have said, on the well-recognized principle that when the subject-matter of a suit in a court of equity is within another State or country, but the parties within the jurisdiction of the court, the suit may be maintained and remedies granted which may directly affect and operate upon the person of the defendant and not upon the subject-matter, although the subjectmatter is referred to in the decree, and the defendant is ordered to do or refrain from certain acts toward it, and it is thus ultimately but indirectly affected by the relief granted. In such case the decree is not of itself legal title, nor does it transfer the legal title. It must be executed by the party, and obedience is compelled by proceedings in the nature of contempt, attachment or sequestration. On the other hand, where the suit is