Case Name: JOHNSON v. WHITE
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1912-01-09
Citations: 60 Or. 611
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHNSON v. WHITE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 611–616

Head Matter:
On Motion to Dismiss decided January 24, 1911.
On the Merits Argued Jan. 2,
decided Jan. 9,
Rehearing denied Feb. 6, 1912.
JOHNSON v. WHITE.
[112 Pac. 1083.]
[119 Pac. 769.]
Appeal and Error—Failure to File Brief.
1. Respondent's failure to comply with.' Supreme Court Rule 6 (50 Or. 572: 91 Pac. viii), requiring filing of brief within 20 days after the filing of abstract, does not ipso facto entitle appellant to a reversal, but the merits must be determined.
Appeal and Error—Failure to File Brief—Excuse.
2. Where respondent in an equity suit failing to file a brief within the time required by Supreme Court Rule 6 (50 Or. 372: 91 Pac. viii), filed an affidavit showing a misconception by him of the rule and a misunderstanding between opposing counsel as to who should first file brief, lie was entitled to be relieved from his default.
Mortgages—Foreclosure—Parties—Owner of Equality of Redemption.
3. The owner of the equity of redemption is a necessary party to an action to foreclose a mortgage.
Mortgages—Foreclosure—Parties.
4. A grantee of the mortgaged premises after the execution of the mortgage was properly made a defendant in foreclosure proceedings.
Parties—Misjoinder—Asking Affirmative Relief.
5. Any impropriety in joining one as a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding was waived by his answer, asking for affirmative relief.
Mortgages—Foreclosure—Defenses.
6. The anwser, in proceedings to foreclose a mortgage, executed July 3, 1904, alleged that on a date after the execution of the mortgage the sheriff sold the mortgaged premises to defendant for delinquent taxes assessed for the year 1904, and executed a tax deed to him, which was duly recorded, and that defendant is the fee-simple owner of the land. Held, that the answer merely set up a claim for taxes subsequent to the date of the mortgage, and did not allege a title paramount to the mortgagor, making inapplicable a contention that in foreclosure the court could not determine an alleged title paramount to the mortgagor’s title.
Taxation—Tax Deed—Evidence.
7. While Section 3127, B. & C. Comp., makes a tax deed prima facie evidence of the regularity of the tax proceedings, including the sale, such prima facie case may be overcome by proof.
Taxation—Tax Sale—Return of Sale.
S. Under Section 3118, B. & C. Comp., providing that the warrant for collection of delinquent taxes must he executed and returned as an execution against property, a tax deed was void, where it appeared that an unsigned memorandum of sale was made in the sheriff's office, which merely recited the sale to defendant of 80 acres in the section described, and the amount received.
From Multnomah: John B. Cleland, Judge.
This is a suit by Mary E. Johnson against Charles A. White and Pauline M.. White, his wife, Burt Brown Barker, Trustee, Atlee W. Strickler, Arthur Stipe and George Wetherby. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, the defendant, George Wetherby, appeals and files motion to dismiss the appeal and for a decree in his favor, for plaintiff’s failure to file briefs.
Denied.
Mr. George Wetherby in pro: per. for the motion.
Mr. George P. Lent, contra.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
This is an equity suit. Defendant appeals. The abstract was filed November 21, 1910. Plaintiff failed to file his brief within 20 days thereafter as provided by rule 6 (50 Or. 572: 91 Pac. viii). Defendant, on December 28th, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and for a decree in his favor for the reason that plaintiff has not filed his brief within the time provided by rule 6. Plaintiff admits that he is in default, and has filed an affidavit showing a misconception by himself of rule 6, and a misunderstanding between opposing counsel as to who should file the first brief in an equity suit. But he filed his brief on January 7, 1911. Respondent's failure to file a brief does not ipso facto entitle appellant to a reversal of the decree. The merits of the appeal must be determined even though respondent does not appear. His default at most is only a waiver of his right to be heard. Defendant's motion must be denied, and by reason of the showing made by plaintiff he will be relieved from his default. Wood v. Fisk, 45 Or. 276 (77 Pac. 128, 738).
Motion Denied.