Legal Opinion

Elliott v. Clement

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 19, 1944PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLusk, J.

Several alleged defects in the foreclosure proceedings entitled Grant County v. Edna Arnold et al. are urged by the defendants, but there is one which, in our judgment, is decisive of the case and, therefore, the only one that need be discussed.

By the published summons the defendants were required “to appear within sixty days from and after the date of service upon you, exclusive of the first day of said service, and defend this suit.” The proceedings were governed by §§ 69-807 and 69-816, Oregon Code 1930. The latter section provides that “in all foreclosures by a county summons may be…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Thatcher v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
  2. Groesbeck v. SeeleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
  3. Denver City Irrigation & Water Co. v. MiddaughSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
  4. Dick v. ForakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  5. Arthur v. IsraelSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Tannhauser v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Hood River County v. DabneyOregon Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Hughes v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Linn County v. RozelleOregon Supreme Court · 1945
  5. School District No. 1 Ex Rel. Lynch Co. v. Rushlight & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1962

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API