Argument for Petitioners. 199 U. S. ship, 179 U. S. 472; Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359; Colorado Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138. The bill also invoked the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, because the case involved the construction and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent complainants from being deprived of their property without due process of law, under authority of the State of Washington, by a judgment of the state court and proceedings thereon, all rendered and taken without jurisdiction and without notice to complainants. As to effect of words "dependent" and "invoked" see Florida Central v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321; Cases supra; Am. Sug. Ref. Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277; Press Pub. Co. v. Monroe, 164 U. S. 105, 112; Spreckels v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397. The bill stated a case involving the application of the Constitution of the United States. See laws of Washington, 1895, p. 197, §1; Corcoran v. Bell, 78 Pac. Rep. 945, and as to nuncupative wills see Laws, 1854, p. 315, § 23; Pierce's Code, §§ 2321, 2331; Ballinger's Code, § 6083; Code of 1881, § 1330; and as to service of process, Pierce's Code, §§ 335-337. Also as to jurisdiction of Superior Court of Washington, Const. Washington, Art. XXVII, § 10 and Art. IV, §6. The question presented by the bill was not simply whether the decree probating the will was valid or void, but, being void for want of jurisdiction in the court to render it, the attempt to take the property of the complainants by authority of the void decree and under authority of the state court, was a violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U. S. 276. No judgment of a court is due process of law if rendered without jurisdiction in the court or without notice to the party. Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34; C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 234; Earle v. McVeigh, 91 U. S. 503, 510; Winsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274, 277; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 417; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350, 368; Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. 289; Cooley's Const. Lim. 353; Lavin v. Savings Bank, 18 Blatchf. 1; Roller v. Stolly, 176 U. S. 398. 199 U. S. Argument for Petitioners. The essential elements of due process of law are notice and an opportunity to defend. Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427. The decree of probate was void. Dolan v. Jones, 79 Pac. Rep. 640; Corcoran v. Bell, 78 Pac. Rep. 945; National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U. S. 257; Smith v. White, 32 Washington, 414; Ball v. Clothier, 34 Washington, 299; In re Leonard's Will, 65 N. J. L. 167; Randolph v. Bayne, 44 California, 370; Charleboise v. Bourdon, 6 Montana, 373; Ashurst v. Fountain, 67 California, 18; Spencer v. Houghton, 68 California, 82; Haws v. Clark, 37 Iowa, 356; Boales v. Shules, 29 Iowa, 507; Jones & Magee Co. v. Boggs, 63 Iowa, 589; Sprote v. Marshall, 4 Iowa, 344; Hodges v. Brett, 4 Iowa, 345; Melbourn v. Fouts, 4 Iowa, 346; Fernekes v. Case, 75 Iowa, 152; Joiner v. Delta Bank, 71 Mississippi, 382; Hunsaker v. Coffin, 2 Oregon, 107; Northcut v. Lemery, 8 Oregon, 317, 323; Lewis v. Bishop, 19 Washington, 312; Everett Water Co. v. Fleming, 26 Washington, 364. To allow judgment, rendered without jurisdiction for want of notice, to be used as a muniment of title to take the property of complainants from the possession of the administrator, who holds it in trust for them, is an act forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment, and one which can be prevented by injunction before it is consummated, instead of being annulled after its execution. Waterworks v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65; Walla Walla v. Water Works, 172 U. S. 1; Pac. Elec. R. Co. v. Los Angeles, 194 U. S. 112; Pac. Gas. Imp. Co. v. Ellert, 64 Fed. Rep. 421; Nashville &c. Ry. v. Taylor, 86 Fed. Rep. 168. As to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court where the amount involved is sufficient for jurisdictional purposes and the requisite diversity of citizenship exists, a Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction in equity to enjoin one from asserting and enforcing a decree of a state court obtained by ud and rendered without jurisdiction, where there is no lequate remedy at law. Howard v. Cordova, 177 U. S. 609; Cooper v. Newell, 173 U. S. 155; Huntington v. Laidley, 176 U. S. 668; Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 590; Arrowsmith v. Gleason, 129 U. S. 86; National Surety Co. v. State Bank, 120 Argument for Petitioners. 199 U. S. Fed. Rep. 593; McNeil v. McNeil, 78 Fed. Rep. 834; Graver v. Faurot, 76 Fed. Rep. 257. While the probate of a will ex parte is a proceeding in rem over which a Circuit Court of the United States does not exercise jurisdiction, yet when a state court of general jurisdiction has jurisdiction by a proceeding inter partes to annul a will and its probate, a Circuit Court of the United States in such State has jurisdiction at law or in equity, as the nature of the case may require, to give the same relief, when the amount involved is sufficient and the requisite diversity of citizenship exists. Richardson v. Green, 159 U. S. 264; S. C., 61 Fed. Rep. 432; Crabbe v. Williams, 187 U. S. 645; Williams v. Crabbe, 117 Fed. Rep. 193; Wart v. Wart, 117 Fed. Rep. 766; Sawyer v. White, 122 Fed. Rep. 223; Kieley v. McGlynn (Broderick's Will), 21 Wall. 503; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608; McDonald v. Jordan, 178 U. S. 229; Everhart v. Everhart, 34 Fed. Rep. 82; Broadhead v. Shoemaker, 44 Fed. Rep. 518; Kirby v. Railroad Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 551. The statute of Washington having given an equitable right to the heirs of a decedent to contest the will in a Superior Court of the State, exercising general equity jurisdiction, by a proceeding inter partes, and the Supreme Court of the State having decided that the suit to enforce such right is of an equitable nature, the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington has jurisdiction to enforce the same right in this suit. Cases supra and Clayson v. Clayson, 26 Washington, 253; Stratton v. Tallman, 25 Washington, 295; Higgins v. Nethery, 30 Washington, 239; Bower v. Bower, 5 Washington, 225; Mason v. McLean, 6 Washington, 31; Hill v. Hill, 7 Washington, 408; Purdy v. Purdy, 13 Washington, 164; Boman v. Boman, 49 Fed. Rep. 329; Land Title Co. v. Asphalt Co., 127 Fed. Rep. 1; U. S. Ship Building Co. v. Conklin, 126 Fed. Rep. 132; Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co., 123 Fed. Rep. 506. United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109. As the question of jurisdiction lay at the threshold, and the 199 U.S. Argument for Respondents. intent of the act of March 3, 1891, was that that question should be determined by this court, the Circuit Court of Appeals should properly have suspended any consideration of the case upon the merits until that question could be determined upon certificate. Mr. William F. Hays, Mr. J. P. Houser, Mr. Joseph W. Robinson and Mr. John H. Mitchell for respondents submitted: Jurisdiction was not invoked upon Federal grounds. If diversity of citizenship is eliminated nothing is left. This appeal should be dismissed. Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47; Huguley Mfg. Co. v. Galeton Cotton Mills, 184 U. S. 290; Loeb v. Columbia County, 179 U. S. 472; Am. Sugar Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U, S. 277; Howard v. United States, 184 U. S. 676; Northern Pacific v. Soderberg, 188 U. S. 526; Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359; Florida Central v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321. The decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals was final and cannot be reviewed in this court. Section 6, act of March 3, 1901, 1 Supp. Rev. Stat. 903; Rule 8 of this Court; Carrau v. O'Callaghan, 125 Fed. Rep. 657; United States v. Taylor, 147 U. S. 695; Ayres v. Polsdorfer, 187 U. S. 589. As to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court the conclusion reached by the Circuit Court of Appeals was based upon the constitution and statutes of Washington. Section 6, Art. IV, Const. Washington. Sections 851-867, Hill's Ann. Code, contain express provisions for a contest of any will admitted to probate for any cause affecting the validity of the will, but that this must be done by petition to the Superior Court, having jurisdiction and administering such estate. Stratton v. Tallman, 25 Washington, 295; S. C., 29 Washington, 317; Re Aljsted's Estate, 27 Washington, 175; Filley v. Murphy, 30 Washington, 1,5. And see §§ 6110, 6347-6377, 2 Ballinger's Code, authorizing the trial and determination in the probate department of the state court, of all questions of heirship, as well as the right to take under wills. VOL. CXCIX-7 Argument for Respondents. 199 U.S. Such a contest necessarily requires that court to determine the question of kinship as an issue incident to the right to contest the will, and the state court in construing these statutes has uniformly held this to be the law. The probate department has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction so to do. Cases supra and Webster v. Seattle Trust Co., 7 Washington, 651; Griffin v. Warburton, 23 Washington, 231; Browder v. Finney, 30 Washington, 74; In re Murphy's Estate, 30 Washington, 9; Church v. McMillan, 31 Washington, 643. The Federal courts have never assumed to exercise jurisdiction over probate matters, except owing to some peculiar statute in the one class of cases, or a clear misapprehension of what has been decided in certain other cases. Bedford Quarries Co. v. Thomlinson, 95 Fed. Rep. 208; Walker v. Brown, 63 Fed. Rep. 204; Wahl v. Brown, 63 Fed. Rep. 680; In re Cilley, 58 Fed. Rep. 977; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 430; Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503; Reed v. Reed, 31 Fed. Rep. 53; In re Aspinwall's Estate, 83 Fed. Rep. 952; Oakley v. Oakley, 64 Fed. Rep. 246; Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 Fed. Rep. 250. And see Wahl v. Franz, 100 Fed. Rep. 680. Under the laws of the State of Washington, a will may be probated ex parte, and when so probated, it amounts to nothing more nor less than the institution of a special proceeding, which does not become final for one year, during which time any person interested may file a petition in contest and litigate every question going to the validity of the will, its execution. or the probate thereof. Even if the Federal and the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction whichever court first assumes jurisdiction will proceed to a final determination without any interference from any other court. In re Joseph's Estate, 50 Pac. Rep. 786. A petition to probate a will is the beginning of a special proceeding. The order admitting to probate is not final so long as proceedings may be taken to revoke the probate. In all subsequent stages the contest is but a part of the proceeding to probate the will and is not a new and distinct proceed |