Case Name: FILDEW v. MILNER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1910-07-19
Citations: 57 Or. 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: FILDEW v. MILNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 16–22

Head Matter:
On motion to dismiss, decided June 28, 1910.
On the merits, argued July 7,
decided July 19, 1910.
FILDEW v. MILNER.
[109 Pac. 1092.]
Appeal and Error — Bonds—Motion to Dismiss.
1. Where a bond given on appeal is insufficient, a motion to dismiss the appeal will be denied and leave granted to file a new bond, under Section 549, subd. 4, B. & G. Comp,
Appearance — Effect—Jurisdiction of Person.
2. A voluntary appearance of a defendant to set aside a default decree, after service by publication and application for leave to file an answer, conferred jurisdiction of his person.
Appearance — Appearance After Judgment — Effect.
3. A voluntary appearance of a defendant to set aside a default decree, after service by publication and application for leave to file an answer, would not cure defects in the complaint, if it failed to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.
Quieting Title — Complaint.
4. A complaint in a suit, under Section 516, B. & C. Comp., to determine title to real estate must allege that defendant claims an adverse interest in the property.
Judgment — Vacation—Statutes—Construction.
5. Section 103, B. & C. Comp., authorizing the vacation of a judgment taken against a party through his mistake, excusable neglect, etc., is a remedial statute, and, as such, should be liberally construed.
Judgment — Vacation—“Notice.”
6. Section 103, B. & C. Comp., provides that the court may at any time within one year after notice thereof relieve a party from a judgment or order taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Held, that “notice,” as used in the statute, means “knowledge.”
Judgment — Vacation—Parties .
7. Section 38, B. & C. Comp., provides that no action shall abate by the transfer of any interest therein, if the cause of action continue. Pending a suit to determine title to land, the same was conveyed and a default decree was entered after service by publication. Thereafter a motion was made to vacate the decree, and the grantees sought to be substituted as defendants. Held, that it was proper to permit the grantees to be made parties defendant, if not to be substituted.
Judgment — V acation — Grounds.
8. Section 103, B. & C. Comp., authorizes the vacation of a judgment taken against a party through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Held, that where summons was served by publication and a default decree entered, but it appeared from the affidavit of one of the two defendants that neither of them knew that suit had been instituted, or decree rendered, and that one of them had been a resident of a certain city in the State, and was an officer in that city and generally known throughout the State, so that if reasonable effort had been made a copy of the complaint and summons could have been mailed to him, an order vacating the decree and permitting the filing of an answer was proper.
From Tillamook: William Galloway, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Moore.
This suit was commenced August 13, 1907, by J. H. Fildew against J. T. Milner and O. O. Beardsley. The initiatory pleading, omitting its formal parts, is as follows: . i
“Plaintiff for cause of complaint herein against the above-named defendants alleges: That plaintiff is the owner of the S. W. % of section thirty-one (31), township two (2) north, range five (5) west, Willamette Meridian, in Tillamook County, Oregon; that plaintiff is in possession of said premises; that defendants herein claim to have some interest in the said land; that said interest as claimed by defendants is inferior and subsequent to this plaintiff. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for a decree herein, that defendants show the nature of their said interest, and that they be forever barred of any right, title or interest thereto, and that this plaintiff be decreed to be the owner of said premises.”

Opinion:
Decided June 28, 1910.
On Motion to Dismiss.
[109 Pac. 1092.]
Opinion Per Curiam : This is a motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the bond therefor is insufficient. The appellant's counsel have interposed a counter-motion for leave to file an amended undertaking.
When a party in good faith gives a notice of appeal from a judgment or decree and thereafter omits, through mistake, to file an undertaking, the appellate court may permit the performance of such act. Section 549, subd. 4, B. & C. Comp. An undertaking was given in this cause, thereby evidencing good faith, and such being the case, the motion to dismiss is denied, and leave is hereby granted to file a new undertaking within thirty days.
Denied.