90 P. 582 | Or. | 1908
Opinion on the Merits
Decided December 29, 1908.
On the Merits.
[98 Pac. 877.]
Statement by
In 1898 plaintiff was the owner of lot 16, block 9, in Multnomah; in this State. About that time he removed to Dawson City, Yukon Territory, and during his absence the property was sold under a warrant, issued for the collection of a delinquent sewer assessment, levied against the property by the City of Portland, and was purchased
On September 25th it commenced a suit in the circuit court for Multnomah County against plaintiff to quiet its title to the property. Service of summons was had upon the plaintiff by publication, and, as he defaulted, a decree was rendered on November 14th adjudging and decreeing that the land company was the owner in fee of the premises in question, and plaintiff, Kieffer, had no right, title, interest, or estate therein, and that he be forever barred and foreclosed from asserting any claim thereto. Thereafter the land company sold and conveyed the property, by 'warranty deed, to one Murdock, who sold it to defendant Helman, who borrowed $1,000 of defendant Collins, with which to erect a building thereon, securing the same by a mortgage on the property.
In the fall of 1904, Kieffer returned to Portland, and in June following commenced this suit to set aside the proceedings, which attempted to divest him of his title, alleging that the assessment proceedings were irregular and void, and the decree of the court, in favor of the land company, quieting its title to the premises, was based ' upon a fraudulent complaint and a fraudulent affidavit for publication of summons.
The defendant land company answered, denying the allegations of the complaint, and setting up affirmatively the assessment proceedings and the suit to quiet title. The defendants Helman and Collins answered jointly, denying the averments of the complaint, and pleading the proceedings and decree in the suit brought by the land company against Kieffer to quiet title, and averring that Helman purchased and Collins loaned the money and took a mortgage on the property without notice or knowledge of any defect in the title. The court below
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. William M. LaForce.
For respondent there was a .brief over the names of Mr. Frank Schlegel and Mr. J. H. Middleton, with an oral argument by Mr. Sehlegel.
Opinion by
Lead Opinion
A failure to send up all the testimony in an equity suit is no ground for the dismissal of an appeal. The pleadings and findings of fact may present questions for review in this court.
The motion to dismiss will therefore be overruled, and any defect in the testimony can be urged upon the final hearing, if the appellant seeks to have reviewed the findings made by the trial court.
Motion Overruled.