Harper ex rel. Norton v. Harding
Clackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon
Thk plaintiff, W. W. Harper, who it is averred is insane, sues by guardian, to set aside certain deeds and to recover possession of the premises in controversy. „ The plaintiff charges that on June 2, 1860, said Harper executed a mortgage while said Harper w'as insane; that while said Harper was still insane, the said mortgage was foreclosed, and the premises sold to the mortgagee, A. M. Harding, in April, 1864, wdio afterwards conveyed to the defendants, King and Hawley.
Read the full summary
Thk plaintiff, W. W. Harper, who it is averred is insane, sues by guardian, to set aside certain deeds and to recover possession of the premises in controversy. „ The plaintiff charges that on June 2, 1860, said Harper executed a mortgage while said Harper w'as insane; that while said Harper was still insane, the said mortgage was foreclosed, and the premises sold to the mortgagee, A. M. Harding, in April, 1864, wdio afterwards conveyed to the defendants, King and Hawley. He also charges that the mortgage was without consideration. The complaint then proceeds as follows: ‘ ‘ For further and…
1Opinion of the Court
Bv the Court.
(Upton, J.)
I think tbe complaint is insufficient. In order to maintain this suit tbe plaintiff must show tbat tbe defendants are not entitled to tbe premises, either under tbe foreclosure or under tbe deed executed subsequently.
If tbe allegation is true, tbat Mr. Harper was insane when be executed tbe mortgage, that is a fact tbat might have been plead and proved in tbe foreclosure suit. As a géneral rule a judgment or decree of a court having jurisdiction cannot be attacked collaterally; and when a decree is attacked for want of jurisdiction, it is not a sufficient showing of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Morrill v. MorrillOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- Bobell v. WagenaarOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Dixon v. SimpsonOregon Supreme Court · 1929