Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1895-04-13
IN TWO HIGH COURTS
Opinions Rendered at Salem
and Olympia.
MANY CASES OF IMPORTANCE
The Judgment in the Case of O'Hara
Against Parker, From Clatsop
County, Was Reversed.

Salem, April 1O.-The following pro-
court:
P. O'Hara, appellant, VS. H. B.
Parker, respondent, from Clatsop coun-
ty; judgment reversed. Opinion by
WolvertOn, j.
J. Mayer, respondent, VS.. Rebecca
J. Mayer, appellant, from Benton;
Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Bean,
{. J.
Little Klamath Water Ditch Com
pany, appellant, VS.. B. Ream and E.
J. Roher, respondents, from klamath
county; Judgment reversed and the
cause remanded for such other proceed
ings as may be proper, not inconsistent
with this opinion. Opinion by Bean,
G. J.
J. D. Matlock, respondent, VS.. A.
Weller ct al, appellants. Motions to
dismiss appeal overruled and the under
standing submitted may be filed.
Opinion per curiam.
In O'Hara VS.. Parker, the appellant
asked for the removal of a cloud from
the title to abstract of land i'll Clatsop
county, alleged to exist by virtue of a
sheriff's deed executed September 30,
1888. The points established in this
decision are:
First, a decree rendered upon de-
murrer to complaint for the reason that
it does not state facts sufficient to con-
stitute cause of suit, is not bar to a
xxyhn hn LOS inf
does not state facts constituting the
cause not contained III the first com
plant as Judgment upon the demurrer
to first complaint is not decision upon
the merits Of the case; second, that ac-
tual possession by the plaintiff is not
necessary to give a court of equity
jurisdiction to remove cloud from a
title; third, that the defendant, by fail
ing to specially plead to the jurisdic-
ton of the court and demanding equi-
table relief on his part, waived his
right to insist that the court was with
out jurisdiction, because the plaintiff
was not in possession when the suit
was instituted.
The sheriff. deed is held to be in
valid because:
First, notice of the sale was first
published only twenty-seven days prior
to sale; second, the land was not sold
at public auction.
Mayer VS.. Mayer-This is an appeal
from divorce decree, calling in ques-
ton the jurisdiction of the court. 1t
is alleged that a decree was issued
without the appearance of or any pro-
cess of service upon the defendant, ex-
cept by publication in newspaper, and
defendant prays to be let in to defend
the suit. By asking to defend, the
court holds iurisdictional grounds are
waived as sufficient facts are not set
forth to show that the defendant has a
good and valid defense.
In the Little klamath Water Ditch
Company VS.. Ream and Rohrer, the
history of the case is as follows:
Edgar Ball entered into contract
with the plaintiff for water for irrigat
ing farm. The farm and certain
debts due Ball afterwards passed into
the hands of the defendants, who were
sued as parties to the contract with the
water company. Objections were made
to the evidence of Ball, tending to show
that the yield of the farm was in
creased by the use of the plaintiffs
water, but was overruled by the court.
An appeal was taken and the supreme
court holds that objections were well
taken, as the defendants had a claim
on the land at the time of the contract.
The following decisions were also
rendered and ordered entered:
H. Farwell, appellant, VS.. N. Need
ham, respondent. Ordered on motion
that appellant have until May 20, 1895,
to serve and file brief.
A. r. Heintz ct al, appellant, VS.
Joseph Burkard, respondent. Ordered
on stipulation that respondent have
until April 20, 1895, to serve and file
brief
The Farmers Loan & Trust Com
pany, respondent, VS.. The Oregon Pa
citic Railroad Company ct al, appel
lants. Ordered that to perfect tran
script the clerk of the lower court be
required to certify the papers required.
E. O. Rease ct al, respondents, vs.
Allan Grant, appellant Argued and
submitted on respondents motion to
dismiss appeal and appellants cross
motion for leave to file new under
taking.
G. J. Farley, respondent, VS.. Allan
Grant, appellant. Argued and sub
mitted as the above
H. F. McElroy, appellant, VS.. Will
lam Buckler ct al, respondents, argued
and submitted on respondents motion