Pike v. Kennedy
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multnomah County. The affidavit does not show that defendants in the foreclosure suit had any property in the State.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multnomah County. The affidavit does not show that defendants in the foreclosure suit had any property in the State. (Code, p. 116, § 55, subd. 3; Spies v. Halstead, 71 N. C. 209; Wirner v. Fitzgerald, 19 Wis. 396; Code, § 506, p. 213.) It does not appear from said affidavit that defendants could not be found within the State, or that any effort whatever had been made to find them, or ascertain their whereabouts, or where they were at the time the affidavit for the order of publication was made. (Code, p. 116, § 55; Carleton v. Carleton, 85 N. Y. 313; Riclcertson v. Riclcertson,…
1Opinion of the CourtLobd, C. J.
This was an action in ejectment to recover lot 8, in block 183, in Couch’s addition to the city of Portland, Oregon. The plaintiff bases his right to recover upon the invalidity of certain proceedings in a foreclosure suit, which, he claims, rendered the decree therein void. That suit was for a foreclosure of a mortgage executed by the plaintiff Pike and his wife to Klosterman Brothers, upon the property sought to be recovered in this action. It is admitted that if the decree is void, the title to the land in controversy never passed out of the plaintiff by force of that proceeding, and that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Miller v. BrinkerhoffNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Staples v. . FairchildNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Rawdon v. CorbinNew York Supreme Court · 1849
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bank of Colfax v. RichardsonOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Arbogast v. Pilot Rock Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Pillsbury v. StreeterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
- Felts v. BoyerOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Shubert v. RosenbergerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.