Case Name: FIRST NAT. BANK OF JOSEPH v. RUSK
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1912-11-26
Citations: 64 Or. 35
Docket Number: 
Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF JOSEPH v. RUSK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 35–46

Head Matter:
Argued October 29,
decided November 26, 1912;
rehearing denied January 14, 1913.
FIRST NAT. BANK OF JOSEPH v. RUSK.
(127 Pac. 780.)
(129 Pac. 121.)
Appeal and Error—Technicalities—Constitutional Daw—Process.
1. Under Section 3, Article VII, of the Constitution, as amended, providing that, if the judgment appealed from was right, it shall be affirmed, notwithstanding error committed during the trial, the court may affirm a judgment, although the trial court rendered a default judgment on a summons which did not state the county, and which notified defendant that plaintiff "will take judgment against you as prayed for in its complaint,” instead of stating the specific sum du.e; the defendant having been personally served with the complaint, which stated the matters omitted in the summons.
Process—Summons—Defects—Construction With Complaint.
2. The copy of the summons served on defendant must be read in connection with the complaint attached thereto, in order to explain any apparent ambiguity in the summons, so that the omission to state the county in the summons, and its statement that on failure to answer judgment would be taken as prayed for in the complaint, instead of for a definite sum as provided by the statute, were defects cured by the complaint served with the summons, stating the venue and the sum for which judgment was asked.
From Union: John W. Knowles, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.
This is an action by the First National Bank of Joseph, against John P. Rusk, for money had and received.
The complaint begins with a title which reads thus:
“In the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, for Union County. First National Bank of Joseph, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. John P. Rusk, Defendant.”
In that pleading a cause of action is then stated for a balance due and unpaid on money had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff, concluding with a demand for judgment in the sum of $34.45, with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from October 24, 1911, and for costs and disbursements.
The summons reads thus:
“In the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, for the county of -. First National Bank of Joseph, Oregon, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. John P. Rusk, Defendant. To John P. Rusk, Defendant: In-the name of the State of Oregon, you are hereby required to appear and answer the complaint filed against you in the above entitled court 'and cause within ten days from the date of the service of this summons- upon you, if served within this county, or if served within any other county of this State, then within twenty days from the date of the service of the summons upon you; and if you fail to answer, for want thereof the plaintiff will take judgment against you as prayed for in its complaint. (Signed) A. M. Runnells, Attorney for 'Plaintiff.”
This summons was issued on the 24th day of April, 1912, and on the same day was returned into the circuit court and filed therein with the following return indorsed thereon:
“State of Oregon, County of Union—ss.: I, S. .PChilders, sheriff of said State and county, do hereby certify that I served the within summons within the said State and county on the 24th day of April, 1912, on the within named defendant, John P. Rusk, by personally delivering a copy thereof, prepared and certified to by me as sheriff, together with a copy of the complaint, prepared and certified to by A. M. Runnells, attorney for plaintiff, to John P. Rusk, personally and in person. (Signed) S. P. Childers, Sheriff of Union County, State of Oregon, by C. P. Newlin, Deputy.”
No appearance having been entered or pleading filed by or on behalf of the defendant, the circuit court entered a judgment as for want of an answer on May 31, 1912, whereby it was determined that the plaintiff have and recover from the defendant the sum of $34.45, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from October 24, 1911, until paid, together with the costs and disbursements, taxed at the sum of $10.20. From this judgment the defendant has appealed.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. John P. Rusk.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. A. M. Runnells.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Burnett
delivered the opinion of the court.
It was admitted by the defendant in person at the hearing of this case in this court, that the return of the sheriff indorsed upon the summons was strictly true as therein stated. There are two things of which he complains on his appeal. One is that the blank left for the name of the county in the title of the cause as the same appears in the summons was not filled, and the other is that the summons notifies the defendant that the plaintiff will "take judgment against you as prayed for in its complaint," instead of stating that the plaintiff would take judgment for a specific sum of money. The deduction which the defendant makes from these premises is that the circuit court had no jurisdiction over his person and none to render the judgment.
Conceding, without deciding, that, prior to the amendment of Article VII of the constitution of this State, adopted by the initiative process at the November election, 1910, the conclusion urged by the defendant would be the proper one to be deduced from the precedents heretofore established in this court, yet we think the constitution referred to has materially altered the situation. In part, Section 3 of the amended Article VII reads thus:
"Until otherwise provided by law, upon appeal of any case to the Supreme Court either party may have attached to the bill of exceptions, the whole testimony, the instructions of the court to the jury and any other matter material to the decision on the appeal. If the Supreme Court shall be of opinion, after consideration of all the matters thus submitted, that the judgment of the court appealed from was such as should have been rendered in the case, such judgment shall be affirmed, notwithstanding any error committed during the trial or if in any respect the judgment appealed from should be changed and the Supreme Court shall be of the opinion that it can determine what judgment should have been entered in the court below, it shall direct such judgment to be entered in the same manner and with like effect as decrees are now rendered in equity cases on appeal to the Supreme Court."
Decided January 14, 1913.
(129 Pac. 121.)
The will of the people as thus expressed in the constitution has sounded the death knell of many technicalities, which are best honored in their breach rather than in their observance. It removes from this court the fetters of hair-splitting niceties, and enables it to proceed according to common-sense rules of natural justice, having due regard to the spirit of the law rather than its letter. Confessedly the defendant was personally served with the complaint, a document which informed him at large with what the plaintiff charged him, in what court he was charged, and of the relief demanded by the plaintiff. Technically considered, the circuit court may have erred in rendering judgment on such a summons; but by the constitution alluded to we have authority to affirm the judgment "notwithstanding any error committed during the trial." In may be, too, that for the purpose of enforcing substantial justice it will in some cases hereafter be deemed proper to adhere to the former precedents; but the case at bar presents no features debarring the use of the plenary power confided to us by the people to disregard any error.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Affirmed.