Case Name: ALLIANCE TRUST COMPANY v. O'BRIEN
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1897-11-08
Citations: 32 Or. 333
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALLIANCE TRUST COMPANY v. O’BRIEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 333–342

Head Matter:
ALLIANCE TRUST COMPANY v. O’BRIEN.
[50 Pac. 801; 51 Pac. 640.]
1. Adverse Parties to an Appeal. — A trustee who has mortgaged the property of his beneficiary, and has defaulted in a suit for foreclosure brought against them jointly, is not a necessary adverse party on appeal by the beneficiary from the decree of foreclosure, where the decree was rendered against the mortgagor by default upon publication of summons, and therefore did not and could not include a personal judgment against him.
2. Fraudulent Conveyances — Bona Fide Mortgagee — Notice by Possession— Estoppel. — One who, for the purpose of delaying and hindering creditors, places the title to land in another, cannot invoke the doctrine that possession is notice of his rights to such property, as against a bona fide mortgagee without notice.
S. Idem. — The real owner of property placed the title in her sister, permitted her to hold herself out as the real owner and to pay the taxes thereon, and exercised no rights of ownership except to live on the property. The sister mortgaged the property to one who had no actual notice of the facts, and with a knowledge of this the real owner assigned the insurance policy on the house, so that the loss, if any, should become payable to the mortgagee. Held, that the owner is estopped by her conduct from asserting any title that shall take precedence of the mortgage.
From Multnomah: Loyal B. Stearns, Judge.
Suit to foreclose a mortgage. Jurisdiction over the mortgagors was obtained by publication, and a decree entered as prayed for, after a defense by Annie Petrain, who appeals. The facts are fully stated in the two opinions.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Jarvis V. Beach and Alfred F. Sears, jr., with oral arguments by Mr. Beach and Mr. Nathan D. Simon.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Bronaugh, McArthur, Fenton & Bronaugh, with oral arguments by Mr. Earl G. Bronaugh, jr.
Decided November 8, 1897.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
[50 Pac. 801.]
Per Curriam.
This suit was brought to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendants, John A. and Emily N. O'Brien, to the Alliance Trust Company, Limited, on certain real property in the City of Portland, to secure the payment of $1,400 and interest. The defendants O'Brien, being nonresidents of the state, were served with summons by publication, but made default. The defendants Petrain answered, setting up title and possession in Annie Petrain at the time of the execution of the mortgage and ever since, and that the defendant Emily H. O'Brien held the legal title thereof at that time in trust for her, and that plaintiff had knowledge of these facts. A reply was filed, and, upon the issues joined the court found that the property in question in fact belonged to the defendant Annie Petrain, as alleged, but that she was estopped by her conduct from questioning the right of the O'Briens to mortgage the same to the plaintiff, and thereupon entered a decree foreclosing the mortgage and ordering the property sold. From this decree the Petrains appeal, but served no notice thereof upon the O'Briens. The plaintiff now moves to dismiss the appeal, claiming that the O'Briens are adverse parties to the appellant and should have been served with notice.
It is no longer an open question in this state that any party to a litigation whose interest in relation to the decree or judgment appealed from is in confiict with the modification or reversal sought is an adverse party, and must be served with a notice of appeal: Hamilton v. Blair, 23 Or. 64 (31 Pac. 197); The Victorian, 24 Or. 121 (32 Pac. 1040); Moody v. Miller, 24 Or. 179 (33 Pac. 402); Jackson County v. Bloomer, 28 Or. 117 (41 Pac. 930). But the O'Briens do not come within this rule. They have no interest in the decree appealed from in conflict with a reversal or modification thereof. There is no valid personal judgment against them because they'were served by publication, and the only effect of the decree is to foreclose their interest, if any, in the mortgaged premises, and the reversal of such decree could not affect them injuriously. It is claimed that they are adverse parties because a reversal would release the mortgaged premises from sale in satisfaction of their debt and leave its burden upon them. It is possible such might be the result if they are still liable upon their note, but, if so, it would not follow as the direct result of any change or modification of the decree in question which could be made on this appeal; and it is from the interest a party has in the particular decree or judgment appealed from that the question of adverse parties must be determined, and not from some possible consequence which may flow therefrom. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.
Motion Overruled.
Decided January 10, 1898.