914 FEDERAL REPORTER. �ftnd may be rejected when eollaterally drawn in question." And at page 169 he says: "The juriadiction of the court (under whose order the sale was made) over the subject- matter appears upon the face of the proceedings, and its errora or mistakes, if any were committed, cannot be cor- rected or examined when brought up eollaterally as they were in the circuit court. " �In Voorhees v. Bank of the United States, 10 Pet. 449, 477, it ia eaid: "The purchaser is not bound to look beyond the decree, when executed by a conveyance, if the facts necessary to give jurisdiction appear on the face of the proceedings, nor to look further back than the order of the court. ' If the juriadiction was improvidently exercised, or in a manner not warranted by the evidence before it, it is not to be correeted at the ex- panse of the purchaser, who had a right to rely upon the order of the court as an authority emanating from a competent ju- risdiction.' 2 Pet. 163, 168. 'When a court has jurisdiction it has the right to decide every question in the cause; and, whether the decision be correct or not, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court.' In the United States v. Adredondo it was laid down as a universal principle that when power or jurisdiction is delegated to any public officer or tribunal over a subject-matter, and its exer- cise is confided to his or their discretion, the acts so done are valid and binding as to the subject-matter, and individual rights will not be disturbed eollaterally for anything done in the exercise of that discretion within the authority and power conferred. The only question which can arise, between an individual claiming a right under the acts done, and the pub- lic or any person denying their validity, are power in the offi- cer and fraud in the party. AU other questions are settled by the decision made or act done by the tribunal or officer, unless an appeal or other revision of their proceedings is pre- scribed by law." See, also, U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691, 729. �In Grignon's Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. 319, 343, the court say, after citing the cases of Thompson v. Tolinie and Voorhees v. Bank of U. S.: "We do not deem it necessary, now or here- «fter, to retrace the reasons or authorities on which the de- ����
