Case Name: OREGON INV. & MORTGAGE CO. v. KELLER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1917-07-24
Citations: 85 Or. 262
Docket Number: 
Parties: OREGON INV. & MORTGAGE CO. v. KELLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 262–265

Head Matter:
Submitted on briefs July 21,
affirmed July 24, 1917.
OREGON INV. & MORTGAGE CO. v. KELLER.
(166 Pac. 762.)
Judgment — Motion to Vacate — Affidavit for Service of Summons by Publication — Showing of Merits by Answer or Objections — Necessity for.
1. Where the affidavit of publication was not denied, and was in strict conformity with Section 58, L. O. L., a motion to vacate the default judgment on the ground that the paper in which the summons was published was not of such general circulation as prescribed by law was properly denied, where there was no affidavit supporting the motion or absolute showing of merits and no answer or other objection to the justice of the judgment.
[As to absolute right of defendant not personally served to have judgment opened and to defend, see note in Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1164.]
From Multnomah: Calvin U. Gantenbein, Judge.
This is an action by the Oregon Investment and Mortgage Company, a corporation, against John Kel ler to recover judgment on money loaned the defendant. Defendant appealed from an order overruling motion to set aside default and judgment, unsupported by affidavit or tender of an answer. Affirmed.
In Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.
The plaintiff commenced an action in the Circuit Court to recover money which it had loaned to the defendant. Upon an unchallenged showing, property of the defendant having been duly attached, the court made an order of publication and thereafter a default was entered and judgment rendered for the plaintiff according to the prayer of his complaint for want of an answer. The affidavit of publication declares that the “Oregon Deutsche Zeitung (German-American Daily) is a newspaper published daily and regularly at Portland, Multnomah County, State of Oregon, and of general circulation in such county and state. ’ ’ Nine days after judgment was rendered the defendant appeared by counsel and made the following motion:
“Comes now John Keller, through his attorney, L. W. O’Rourke, and respectfully moves the court for an order vacating the default and judgment heretofore entered in the above entitled case against John Keller, and in favor of the Oregon Investment and Mortgage Company, a corporation, dated April 14, 1917, upon the ground that the publication of the summons as shown by the affidavit of publication of summons is defective and of no account, by reason of the fact that the Oregon-Deutsche Zeitung (German-American Daily) is not a paper of such general circulation as is designated by law for the publication of summons and other legal notices.”
The court overruled the motion and defendant appeals assigning as the sole error the denial of the application.
Submitted on briefs under tbe proviso of Supreme Court Rule 18: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi).
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Mr. I. W. O’Rourke.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. Joseph Woerndle and Mr. C. T. Haas.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Burnett
delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no affidavit or other showing supporting the motion to vacate the default. In effect it is a demurrer to the evidence of publication embodied in the affidavit mentioned. That sworn statement directly says that the paper in question is a paper published and of general circulation in Multnomah County and the State of Oregon. It is a strict compliance with Section 58, L. O. L., which provides that a summons "may be published in any weekly or daily newspaper of general circulation, published in the county where the action, suit, or other proceeding is pending. * " The affidavit is not denied. The sole question is as to the sufficiency of it. Inasmuch as it complies literally with the Code on that subject it is sufficient and the court was right in denying the motion to take off the default. Moreover, there is absolutely no showing of merits and no answer or other objection to the justice of the judgment was tendered. This is an essential feature in applications of this kind without which they must be disregarded: White v. Northwest Stage Co., 5 Or. 99, 103; Bailey v. Williams, 6 Or. 71, 73; Mayer v. Mayer, 27 Or. 133, 135 (39 Pac. 1002); Eagan v. North American Loan Co., 45 Or. 131 (76 Pac. 774, 77 Pac. 392); Felts v. Boyer, 73 Or. 83 (144 Pac. 420); In re Marks' Estate, 81 Or. 632 (160 Pac. 540). The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.