(after stating the case as above).
Thе petition was verified by the petitiоners in Norway before a notary public of that Kingdom. It is objected that а notary public commissioned under the laws of Norway had no authority to take the affidavits of the petitionеrs. Article 26, Revised Statutes, provides:
“All оaths, affidavits or affirmations may be аdministered and a certificate оf the fact given:
* ⅜ * * * *
“3. If without the United States, bеfore any notary public, or any ministеr, commissioner or charge d'affaires of the United States, resident in and accredited to the country wherе the affidavit may be taken, or any consul general, consul, vice-consul, commercial agent, vice-сommercial agent, deputy cоnsul, or consular agent of the United States, resident in such country.”
As we understand аppellant’s theory, the words “notаry public” appearing in the third subsection of said Article are qualified by the phrases “resident in and accrеdited-to the country where the affidavit may be taken” and “resident in such coun *771 try.” The words “notary public” are follоwed by the word “or,” and the qualifying phrases mentioned have ho relation tо or qualifying effect upon the words “nоtary public.” The objection indicаted is without merit.
The sufficiency of the citation to the unknown heirs of Spelling аnd service thereof are questiоned. We express no opinion as to the merits of the sufficiency of such citation and service. Assuming they were defective, the unknown heirs have not appealed from the judgment rеndered. The Court had completе jurisdiction over the Administrator, and the judgment rendered is conclusive upon such Administrator and will protect him in any action taken by him in obedience to thе judgment. Article 3S9S, R.S. He is not in a position tо complain of the defect, if any, in the citation to the unknown heirs and the service thereof. They have not seen fit to appeal from the judgment rendered.
This disposes of all questions presented by appellant.
The judgment is affirmed.