800 FBDBBAIi REPOETEB. �sarily decided that it had jurisdiction in this case, and having exeroised its jurisdiction, its proceedings cannot be collater- ally attacked, and must remain binding until reversed in a direct proceeding. He claima further that as long as debts of the firm of J. Ulrich & Co. remaiiied unpaid the partner- sliip existed, at least for the purpose of the collection of ita accounts and the payment of its debts ; that under the terms pf the will of Jones, and the peculiar law of Texas cited in the statement of facts, the executera were, in fact, trustees, and that judgmenta could be recovered against them and the property of the estate taken in execution, and that a partner- fihip BO fiituated might be put in bankruptcy, notwithstanding the death of one of the partners. He claims further that the acceptance by Ulrich of his discharge was an acceptance of service, or, at least, a waiver; the executera of Jones having accepted service, jurisdiction of the court over the persons of the firm was complete. �The first question to be answered ia, can the proceedings of the bankrupt court be attacked in this collateral proceeding ? �The rule has long been settled that the jurisdiction of any coart inay be challenged in any other court where its judg- ments or decrees are relied oii, EUiott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328 ; U. S. V. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691; Vorhees v. Bank of U. S. 10 Pet. ilô; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 511; Williamson v. Berrn, 8 Pet. 540. In the case last cited the court saya: "The jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a sub- ject may be inquired into in any other courts where the pro- ceedings in the former are relied on and brought before the latter by a party claiming the benefit of such proceedi igs." It has in later cases even been held that the record of a judg- ment may be contradicted as to the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction, and if it be shown that such facts did not exist the record will be a nuUity, notwithstanding it may recite that those facts did exist. Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. e57 ; Knowles v. Gas-Ught d Coke Co. 19 Wall. 58. These authorities, if authorities were needed, fully dispose of the question under consideration; and it is a most reasonable conclusion. No court can aoquire jurisdiction and shut out ����
