Case Name: SMITH v. DWIGHT
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-05-18
Citations: 80 Or. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: SMITH v. DWIGHT.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Harris and Mr. Justice Benson concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 1–16

Head Matter:
Motion, to dismiss appeal denied May 18, 1915.
Argued on the merits March 14,
modified April 4, 1916.
SMITH v. DWIGHT.
(148 Pac. 477; 156 Pac. 573.)
Appeal and Error—Bonds—Amendment.
1. An amended undertaking on appeal given in response to a motion to dismiss, questioning the sufficiency of the undertaking, should have been filed upon leave obtained from the Supreme Court, and as an independent pleading in the proceeding.
Appeal and Error—Notice of Appeal—Defects—Cure by Undertaking.
2. Where the notice of appeal did not name the court to which the appeal was taken, an amended undertaking describing the judgment as appealed to the Supreme Court might be considered as in aid of the notice, especially as it would seem that on an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court, which can be appealed only to the Supreme Court, the failure to name the court is immaterial.
Names—“Idem Sonans.”
3. In a tax foreclosure proceeding, the names “Lewis” and “Louis,” under common usage and pronunciation, were “idem sonans,” which rule is that, if two names, although spelled differently, sound alike, they are considered as the same, and which holds if the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing them when pronounced, or common and long-continued usage has made them identical in pronouneiation; absolute accuracy in spelling names is not required in legal proceedings, as the law does not regard the spelling of names so much as their sound.
[As to law of idem sonans, see note in 100 Am. St. Rep. 322.]
Taxation—Tax Sale—Name—'Statute.
4. Under section 3586, L. O. L. providing that no assessment shall be invalidated by a mistake in the names of the owner of real property assessed, Section 3701, providing that no assessment for taxes shall be considered illegal on account of any irregularity in the changing or listing the taxes to any other name than that of the o-wner, and Section 3710, providing that any judgment for the sale of real estate shall estop all parties from raising any objection thereto ox to a tax title based thereon which existed before such judgment, and could have been presented as a defense to an application therefor, a tax foreclosure was not void because, where the true name of “Lewis” L. Smith was written on the complaint, a copy of which was served with the summons, the summons itself was directed to “Louis” L. Smith, where it was not claimed that the tax had been paid or that the property was not liable to tax levy.
Taxation—Tax Sale—Description of Property—Statute.
5. The description in an assessment-roll of 80 aeres designated as the “NE. of SE.}4 and SE. of NE.]4,” omitting the “%/’ was an abbreviation permitted by Section 3598, L. O. L., permitting an abbreviation in the description of lands assessed, as anyone reading the description could not fail to understand what land was assessed, and, at most, it was a mere irregularity.
[As to sufficiency of tax deed with reference to description of grantee, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1195.]
Taxation—Tax Deed—Acknowledgment—Statute.
6. Under Section 3702, L. O. L., providing that a sheriff’s tax deed shall be recorded “without the sealing, witnessing, or acknowledgment,” the recording officer is simply required to take official notice of the sheriff’s signature, and it is not necessary that his deed be acknowledged or witnessed.
Taxation—Tax Sale—Whole or Part—Statute.
7. Under Section 3701, L. O. L., providing that at a tax sale the -person offering to pay the amount due on each traet for the least quantity shall be the purchaser of such quantity, which shall be taken from the east side of sueh tract, and the remainder discharged from the lien, a sheriff’s tax sale of a quarter-seetion of land valued at $7,000 for taxes, and interest, amounting to $110.60, without showing that the land was offered for sale in accordance with the law or whether the eastern or what pareel was first offered, or in how many parcels or for what the several parcels were sold, in view of the finding that the purchaser was the only bidder, was inequitable and unconscionable.
Taxation—Action to Try Tax Title—Payment of Assessment.
8. Where the property of a person is subject to a tax under the law, he must conform to the requirements of equity and pay the assessment before he can successfully maintain a suit to defeat a tax title outstanding against his land.
Taxation—Tax Deed—Burden of Proof—Irregularity.
9. Under Section 3709, L. O. L., making a sheriff’s tax deed prima facie evidence that the sale was legally conducted, the owner has the burden of proving irregularity, and his showing that an .entire quarter-section valued at $7,000 was sold for liens totaling to $110 overcame the prima faeie showing of regularity.
[As to effect of recitals in tax deed as evidence, see note in 31 Am. St. Rep. 233.]
Pleading—Sufficiency of Complaint—Cure by Judgment.
10. A complaint declaring upon the stated account that defendant promised to pay the amount found due upon a settlement was sufficient after verdict or judgment.
Attachment—Lien—Judgment.
11. Under Section 308, L. O. L., providing that, if judgment is recovered for plaintiff, the court shall order the attached property sold to satisfy his demands, a judgment for the amount demanded, not providing that the attached property should be sold to satisfy it or preserve the attachment lien, operated as a waiver of the lien.
Execution—Form of Writ—Judgment.
12. Under a default judgment, not providing that the attached property should be sold to satisfy it, an attachment execution commanding the sheriff to sell the attached realty, describing the land as in “10 west,” without giving the range or county in which it was situated, was not authorized by the judgment.
Execution—Levy—Statute.
13. Under Section 233, L. O. L., directing that, when the writ of execution is against the property of the debtor, it shall be executed by levy, according to Section 300, which requires a writ of attachment to be executed by delivering to the county clerk the designated certificate showing that the property has been attached, the failure to docket the judgment in the lien docket or to make any further levy was a failure to levy, where the attachment lien had been waived.
Execution—Levy—Requisites.
14. A levy of writ is not an essential requirement, where there is a pre-existing lien of the judgment upon the property to be sold.
From Tillamook: Webster Holmes, Judge.
This is a suit by Lewis L. Smith against W. G. Dwight, in which there was a decree in favor of plaintiff and defendant appeals. Bespondent moves to dismiss the appeal.
Denied.
Mr. T. B. Handley and Mr. Frank Holmes, for the motion.
Mr. G. W. Talmage and Mr. E. J. Claussen, contra.
In Banc. Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court.
1, 2. This is a motion to dismiss an appeal for a defect in a notice. This notice is admitted to be snffi cient, except that it does not name the conrt to which the appeal is taken. The notice was served on thq sixteenth day of February, 1915, and the motion to dismiss was served on the 14th of April, nearly two months afterward. An amended undertaking was given in response to the assignment in the motion to dismiss, .which questions the sufficiency of the undertaking also. The new undertaking describes the judgment as being appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, and remedies other defects therein. This amended undertaking should have been filed upon a leave obtained from this court, and as an independent pleading in said proceeding; but overlooking that omission, which is not questioned, it may be considered as in aid of the notice both as to the description of the court to which the appeal was taken and the judgment from which it is taken. Under the authority of Holton v. Holton, 64 Or. 290 (129 Pac. 532, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 779), the amended undertaking aids the notice of appeal by designating the court to which the appeal was taken. However, when an appeal is from a judgment of the Circuit Court which can be appealed only to the Supreme Court of the state, it would seem to be an immaterial error to omit the naming of such court. It is said in 2 Cyc. 813, that failure to specify the court to which the appeal is taken, there being only one court to which it may be taken, will not be considered as fatal to the jurisdiction of this court. In Holton v. Holton, 64 Or. 290 (129 Pac. 532, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 779), this point was made in the motion in that case, and the notice was held sufficient.
The motion to dismiss is denied. Denied.
This is a suit to quiet title to the west half of the southwest quarter of section 1, and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 2, township 1 north, range 10 west of the Willamette Meridian, in Tillamook County, Oregon. From a decree in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals. The complaint is in the usual form in such cases.
In his answer defendant denies the plaintiff's title, and further sets up as his muniments of title to the land a sheriff's deed executed pursuant to a decree of foreclosure of a delinquent tax certificate, and the other a sheriff's deed upon sale on execution of a judgment in the County Court. The reply put in issue the affirmative matter of the. answer.
Modified.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. G. W. Talmage and Mr. E. J. Claussen, with an oral argument by Mr. Talmage.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. Frank Holmes and Mr. T. B. Handley, with an oral argument by Mr. Holmes.