Legal Opinion

Mutzig v. Hope

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1945Published

1Opinion

1. The plaintiff contends that by reason of the lapse of more than eleven years the defendant should be barred by laches, or the statute of limitations, from now attacking the validity of the judgment. But, if the court never acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, the service of summons being a nullity and there being no general appearance, the judgment would be absolutely void. Under such conditions the judgment might be vacated at any time, either upon motion of the defendant or by the court upon its own motion, and delay or failure of the defendant to move to vacate the same…

2Cases cited60 opinions

  1. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. EstillSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Paige v. SinclairMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  3. Johnston v. WadsworthOregon Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Whitney v. BlackburnOregon Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Quesenberry v. People's Building, Loan & Savings Ass'nWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1898

55 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