Title: Ashford v. Ashford

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed March 24, 1954.
Petition for rehearing denied April 21, 1954.
*207 Joseph H. Page, of Portland, for motion.
Henderson & Dickinson, of Portland, for appellant.
*208 Edward A. Boyrie, of Portland, for intervenor-respondent.
MOTION DENIED.
WARNER, J.
This is on the motion of Edna Mae Ashford, defendant-respondent, for an allowance of attorney's fees for services in preparing her brief and appearance of her counsel in this court in a pending appeal in a suit for divorce wherein the defendant wife prevailed in the lower court.
1. The application of the respondent is settled by the authority of Edwards v. Edwards, 191 Or 275, 281 et seq. 227 P2d 975, where we held that this court is without authority to make such an allowance. We there said, at page 284:
In terms of our own inclination, we reluctantly deny the relief which the respondent seeks and do so solely for the reasons given in Edwards v. Edwards, supra. Her supporting affidavit, if true, delineates a picture of financial hardship and impoverishment which well might deny to the respondent a fair opportunity to adequately present and defend her cause in this court, when the appeal instigated by her appellant *209 husband is heard here on its merits. The apparent injustice flowing from a want of sufficient power here to make an appropriate answer to respondent's request is accentuated by a record which reveals that the appellant husband is an able-bodied man with a substantial income and by the further fact that a parcel of real property involved in the suit threatens to be lost through a pending mortgage foreclosure; but the course followed concerning this and other meritorious motions of like nature must necessarily continue until the legislative assembly evolves some method which will satisfactorily make provision for the alleviation of conditions reflected by the circumstances here present.
Motion denied.
Wilber Henderson argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Henderson & Dickinson, of Portland.
Joseph H. Page, of Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before LATOURETTE, Chief Justice, and LUSK, TOOZE and PERRY, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
TOOZE, J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Francis N. Ashford from a decree of divorce entered against him in favor of the defendant Edna Mae Ashford.
Plaintiff and defendant were married at Portland, Oregon, on November 23, 1939. On May 8, 1946, plaintiff filed in the circuit court for Multnomah county a *210 complaint in which he charged defendant with cruel and inhuman treatment and prayed for a decree of divorce. On August 11, 1946, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on May 8, 1947, a second amended complaint, in which he charged that his marriage to defendant was void because, as he alleged, at the time of such marriage "the defendant had another husband, to-wit: one L.A. Mott, living and to whom she was legally married, and that the defendant's marriage with said Mott was then * * * in force and not dissolved or annulled by decree of divorce or otherwise; * * *", and he prayed for a decree declaring his marriage to defendant void.
By her amended answer, defendant admitted her marriage to L.A. Mott on August 7, 1929, but affirmatively alleged that such marriage had been dissolved by a decree of divorce entered in her favor and against said L.A. Mott by the circuit court for Multnomah county, Oregon, on January 11, 1939, and further, that said decree of divorce had never been vacated, modified, or set aside.
There is but one issue presented on this appeal, and that relates solely to the divorce decree entered in favor of defendant against her former husband, L.A. Mott.
In his brief filed in this court, plaintiff states the issue as follows:
The attack upon the divorce decree in this suit is a collateral, and not a direct, attack, and the decisive *211 question in this case is whether, under the record, such decree is subject to a successful collateral attack.
Upon the trial of this cause, a duly certified copy of the entire record in the divorce suit of E.M. Mott (the defendant in the instant suit), as plaintiff, against L.A. Mott, as defendant, was offered and admitted as evidence.
The only defect in those proceedings that is relied upon by plaintiff in his attack upon the validity of the divorce decree is the alleged insufficiency of the affidavit filed in support of an order for publication of summons.
The complaint filed in the divorce suit states a good cause of suit; summons was duly issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Multnomah county for personal service upon the defendant Mott (with duly certified copy of the complaint); the sheriff returned said summons with his certificate endorsed thereon that "after due and diligent search and inquiry, I hereby return that I have been unable to find the within named defendant, L.A. Mott within Multnomah County, Oregon"; upon the filing thereafter of an affidavit for publication of summons, the court made and entered of record its order for publication of summons and designated in said order the newspaper of general circulation in which such summons should be published, and the time for such publication, all as required by law, and summons was so published; upon the expiration of the time for defendant to answer the complaint, no answer having been filed, nor other appearance made by defendant, the default of defendant was duly entered of record, testimony was taken before the court, and, based thereon, a decree of divorce in favor of the plaintiff was duly entered of record.
*212 Omitting formal parts, the affidavit for publication of summons reads as follows:
Based upon said affidavit and the return of the Multnomah county sheriff, the court entered of record the following Order for Publication of Summons (omitting formal parts):
The proceedings for the publication of summons were based upon § 1-506, Oregon Code 1930 (§ 1-606, OCLA, as amended by ch 63, Oregon Laws 1947; ORS 15.120). This statute was made applicable to divorce suits by § 6-111, Oregon Code 1930 (§ 9-112, OCLA; ORS 15.130). In part, the statute provides:
2. It is the well-established law of this state that in an affidavit for publication of summons every fact must be shown that is necessary under the statute to give the right to an order for service by publication. Probative facts must be stated, it not being sufficient merely to use the words of the statute. It is not sufficient to state generally that after due diligence the defendant *215 cannot be found within the state, or that the plaintiff has a good cause of action against him, or that he is a necessary party; but the acts constituting due diligence or the facts showing that he is a necessary party should be stated. Plaintiff contends on this appeal that the affidavit under consideration here does not meet these requirements, and, therefore, the court acquired no jurisdiction to enter an order for publication of summons. He argues that this defect in the affidavit renders the service of summons, and the decree based thereon, absolutely void. In support of his contention, plaintiff cites and relies upon three prior decisions of this court: Dixie Meadows Co. v. Kight, 150 Or 395, 45 P2d 909; Bagley v. Bloch, 83 Or 607, 163 P 425; Felts v. Boyer, 73 Or 83, 144 P 420.
Each of those cases involved a direct attack upon the decree entered in the suit in which the defective affidavit was filed. The court was not faced with a collateral attack, as we are in the instant litigation. This poses an entirely different problem.
3, 4. At the outset, it must be conceded that the court which rendered the decree of divorce was then exercising a special power conferred upon it by statute, and not according to the course of the common law. We have frequently said that when exercising a special power conferred upon it by statute, and not according to the course of the common law, a circuit court is a court of special and inferior jurisdiction, and its proceedings in such cases are subject to all the incidents applicable to a court of that type. Zipper v. Zipper, 192 Or 568, 574, 235 P2d 866; Quinn v. Hanks, 192 Or 254, 233 P2d 767; Voltz et ux. v. Abelsen, 190 Or 319, 224 P2d 213, 225 P2d 768; Garner v. Garner, 182 Or 549, 189 P2d 397.
*216 However, it must be kept in mind that under the statutes of this state this divorce court of special and inferior jurisdiction is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of divorce. In 49 CJS 841, Judgments, § 425(3) b, the following rules are stated:
In 49 CJS 830, Judgments, § 422 c, in speaking of substituted or constructive service of process, it is said:
In support of the emphasized portion of the above rules, the author cites George v. Nowlan, 38 Or 537, 64 P 1.
In George v. Nowlan, supra, one of the grounds for attack was "that the affidavit for publication and the published summons were insufficient." Chief Justice ROBERT S. BEAN wrote the opinion of the court. After setting forth the substance of the affidavit for publication of summons, Justice BEAN, at page 542 of 38 Or, said:
In Moore Realty Co. v. Carr, 61 Or 34, 37, 120 P 742, a suit to quiet title, a collateral attack was made upon a decree entered in a mortgage foreclosure suit. The attack was based upon an alleged defective and insufficient affidavit for publication of summons. This court, after stating that the only question involved was the sufficiency of the service of summons on defendants, said:
After discussing and quoting from several authorities, the court continued:
We also commented upon the case of Ricketson v. Richardson, 26 Cal 149, cited by plaintiff in the instant *219 suit, and also quoted from by this court in Felts v. Boyer, supra, and pointed out that there a direct attack upon a judgment was involved. As to collateral attacks, the court in the Moore Realty Co. case cited and quoted with approval from the cases of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 721, 24 L ed 565, and Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind 239, 244, 21 NE 1092.
In the note to Clay v. Bilby, 1 Ann Cas 923, also quoted in the Moore Realty Co. case, it is stated:
In Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, a case in which there was a dismissal by the lower court for the reason that the affidavit for publication of summons was wholly insufficient to give the court jurisdiction by publication, the Supreme Court said:
5, 6. The judge in the divorce suit had jurisdiction to pass upon the sufficiency of the affidavit for publication of summons. If defective, he had the authority to refuse to enter an order for publication; he could have permitted an amendment or required the filing of another affidavit. As a condition for an order of publication, the statute requires that certain facts must be made to appear by affidavit "to the satisfaction of the court or judge". It follows, therefore, that, in the first instance, whether the affidavit filed is sufficient is a question that is necessarily addressed to, and must be decided by, such court or judge before an order for publication of summons is made. Jurisdiction to pass upon the sufficiency of the affidavit carries with it jurisdiction to decide erroneously as well as correctly. This is not a case in which no affidavit whatever was filed. The defect in the affidavit under consideration relates to its failure to state just what inquiries were made or what steps were actually taken, in the exercise of due diligence. But it is observed that it does state that defendant had no residence, place of abode, place of business, post-office address, or dwelling house in the state of Oregon, and it further refers to the "not found" return of the sheriff; it also shows that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, that defendant in that suit was a necessary party. In its order for publication of summons, the court referred to the affidavit and to the return of the sheriff, and affirmatively stated that it had been made to appear "to the satisfaction of the court" that personal service of summons could not be made or had upon defendant within the state of Oregon, and directed that summons be published. This is not a case where no notice at all was *221 given to the defendant, nor where the summons as published did not contain everything required by statute. It is conceded that under our decisions the affidavit was defective in failing to show what was done in the exercise of due diligence, but that defect does not render the decree void and vulnerable to collateral attack.
In Essig v. Lower, supra, the Indiana court said:
In Jackson v. State, 104 Ind 516, 517, 3 NE 863, the Indiana court discussed a large number of cases in which the issue now before this court was under consideration. It said:
In Moore Realty Co. v. Carr, supra, at page 41, the court further stated:
*223 In Bull v. Campbell, 225 Fed 923, 929, the court said:
Also see Butler v. McKey, 138 F2d 373; 42 Am Jur 80, Process, § 92; 1 Freeman 5th ed 715, Judgments, § 349.
In 1 Freeman, Judgments, supra, the following rule is stated:
7. The parties to this litigation lived and cohabited together as husband and wife for a period of seven years. Plaintiff knew of defendant's prior marriage and divorce at the time he married her. Every presumption is in favor of a valid marriage. Subdivision 30 of § 2-407, OCLA (ORS 41.360) provides a disputable presumption that "a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage". Public policy demands that the marriage relation be protected, and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of a valid marriage. Unless absolutely void, the decree of divorce *224 in the former suit should be upheld. We are of the opinion that the defect in the affidavit for publication of summons rendered the decree of divorce at most merely voidable, and not void, and that, as against a collateral attack, it must be held to be a valid decree.
The decree is affirmed.