affairs of man. The law cannot give personal notice of its provisions or proceedings to every one. It charges every one with knowledge of its provisions; of its proceedings it must, at times, adopt some form of indirect notice, and indirect notice is usually efficient notice when the proceedings affect real estate. Of what concerns or may concern their real estate, men usually keep informed, and on that probability the law may frame its proceedings; indeed, must frame them, and assume the care of property to be universal, if it would give efficiency to many of its exercises. This was pointed out in Huling v. Kaw Valley Railway & Improvement Company, 130 U. S. 559, where it was declared to be the 'duty of the owner of real estate, who is a non-resident, to take measures that in some way he shall be represented when his property is called into requisition; and if he fails to give notice by the ordinary publications which have been usually required in such cases, it is his misfortune, and he must abide the consequences.' It makes no difference, therefore, that plaintiffs in error did not have personal notice of the suit to collect the taxes on their lands or that taxes had been levied, or knowledge of the law under which the taxes had been levied."

While we are of opinion that the views just stated. demonstrate the want of merit in the contention that the statute, because of the insufficiency of its requirements, was repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, a consideration of a provision of the general law of California, which by the construction of the Supreme Court of California is incorporated into the statute under consideration, would lead to the same result. Thus, in the Hoffman Case, 151 California, 386, 393, the court said:

"In this connection it is proper to say that in determining whether or not due process of law is afforded, other statutes applicable to the proceeding may be considered. The provisions of § 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure

apply in such cases. Any person interested in the property and having no actual notice of the decree, may come in at any time within a year after its rendition and by showing that he has not been personally served with process and stating facts constituting a good defense to the proceeding that is, facts sufficient to show that he has a valid adverse interest in the property-he may have the decree vacated, as to him and be allowed to answer to the merits."

The right conferred by § 473 of the code, it is to be observed, is an absolute right, although the section declares that the court may impose "such terms as may be just." Holiness Church v. Metropolitan Church Association (Cal. App.), 107 Pac. Rep. 633; Gray v. Lawlor, 151 California, 352.

Under this construction it might well be held, if it were necessary to do so, as establishing a rule of limitation which it was in the power of the State to prescribe, in view of the circumstances to which the limitation was made applicable. See Tyler v. Judges, 175 Massachusetts, 71, and State v. Westfall, 85 Minnesota, 437. See also Illinois cases concerning the power to fix a short period of limitation to meet a disaster like the one to which the statute in question relates, collected in Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 346, 347.

These views dispose of all the contentions concerning the repugnancy of the statute to the Fourteenth Amendment which we think it necessary to separately consider. In saying this we are not unmindful of a multitude of subordinate propositions pressed in the voluminous brief of counsel and which were all in effect urged upon the Supreme Court of California in the Kerrigan and Hoffman cases and were in those cases adversely disposed of, and which we also find to be without merit. Some of them we briefly refer to. We do not think it is important to determine the precise nature of the action authorized by

the statute, since the method of procedure which was prescribed was within the legislative competency. So, also, we do not deem it important to discuss what constitutes a judicial proceeding, since the statutory proceeding provided by the act was within the authority of the State to enact, and that it was judicial in character has been expressly determined by the court of last resort of the State. Indeed, not only these, but all the contentions proceed upon a misconception as to the legislative authority of the State and the effect thereon of the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States. The error which all the propositions involve was pointed out in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, where, speaking by Mr. Justice Moody, the court said:

Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction (citing cases) and that there shall be notice and opportunity for hearing given the parties, (citing cases). Subject to these two fundamental conditions, which seem to be universally prescribed in all systems of law established by civilized countries, this court has, up to this time, sustained all state laws, statutory or judicially declared, regulating procedure, evidence and methods of trial, and held them to be consistent with due process of law."

3. The adequacy of the proceedings pursued in the case referred to in the certificate.

As there is no claim that fraud, actual or constructive, was employed by Zeiss in obtaining the judgment complained of, and the proceedings conformed to the California statute, the considerations previously stated entirely dispose of this question.

It follows that both of the questions certified must be answered in the negative.

And it is so ordered.

Opinion of the Court.

219 U. S.

UNITED STATES v. BARBER.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO.

No. 444. Argued October 17, 18, 1910.-Decided January 3, 1911.

On an appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, this court can only look to the judgment which was actually entered to determine what the action of the court below was, and not to any stipulation between the parties.

The designation of a plea does not change its essential nature, and the fact that the statute of limitations is designated as a plea in abatement and not a plea in bar, is untenable.

Even if this court has not jurisdiction under the act of March 2, 1907, of an appeal by the United States from a judgment sustaining a plea in abatement, it has jurisdiction if the plea sustained was in fact one in bar and based solely on the statute of limitations. United States v. Kissel, 218 U. S. 601, followed to effect that a special plea in bar, based on the statute of limitations, to an indictment for conspiracy under § 5440, Rev. Stat., containing allegations of continuance of conspiracy to the date of filing, is not permissible; that defense must be made under the general issue.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fowler for the United States.

Mr. C. T. Bundy, with whom Mr. James H. Hawley, Mr. A. A. Fraser, Mr. N. H. Clapp, Mr. A. E. McCartney, Mr. Joseph G. Dudley and Mr. Roy P. Wilcox were on the brief, for defendants in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

On April 14, 1908, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Idaho, an indictment was re

219 U.S.

Opinion of the Court.

turned, which, in four counts, charged James T. Barber, Sumner G. Moon, Frank Martin and Albert E. Palmer with having violated the conspiracy section of the Revised Statutes, viz., § 5440. In the court below Frank Martin was dismissed from the indictment. Palmer made no appearance, presumably not having been arrested.

The final judgment, to reverse which this writ of error was sued out, is as follows:

"Now came the attorneys for the respective parties herein and thereupon the demurrer to the third count in the indictment herein is withdrawn by the defendants. The demurrer to the second count of the indictment is confessed by complainant, and it is ordered that the demurrer and plea in abatement to the first count of the indictment be and is hereby overruled and denied. It is further ordered that plea in abatement to the fourth count of the indictment be and is hereby sustained. Thereupon counsel for the Government moved and asked that the three first counts of the indictment in the aboveentitled action be nollied; thereupon said motion was granted and the cause dismissed; all in accordance with the direction of Hon. Robert S. Bean, district judge, who heretofore heard and took under advisement said demurrer and plea in abatement."

As by this judgment the first, second and third counts of the indictment were dismissed by the court at the request of the United States, only the action of the court on the fourth count is open for consideration. It is for the purpose of correcting such action that the United States has prosecuted this writ, doing so upon the assumption that the judgment complained of is embraced within the third class of judgments which it is provided by the act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, may be removed to this court by writ of error, viz., a judgment "sustaining a special plea in bar when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy."