Case Name: STATE ex rel. v. SIMPSON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1914-01-06
Citations: 69 Or. 93
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE ex rel. v. SIMPSON.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice Bean concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 93–99

Head Matter:
On motion to dismiss appeal, decided January 6,
rehearing denied February 3, 1914.
STATE ex rel. v. SIMPSON.
(137 Pac. 750; 138 Pac. 467.)
Appeal and Error — Proceedings to Take Appeal.
1. Under Section 550, L. O. L., requiring notiee of appeal to be served on such adverse parties as have appeared in the action, service on a defendant who did not appear is unnecessary and when made gives him no additional rights.
[As to parties entitled to notiee of appeal, see note in 13 Ann. Cas. 181.]
Appeal and Error — Dismissal—Rights of Party in Default.
2. A defendant who has permitted judgment to be entered against him by default cannot assail an appeal taken by the other party by motion to dismiss.
Appeal and Error — Decisions Reviewable — Default Judgment.
3. Section 549, L. O. L., giving a right to appeal from a judgment or decree other than a judgment or decree by confession or for want of answer, gives neither plaintiff nor defendant a right of appeal from a default judgment.
Appeal and Error — Decisions Reviewable — “Judgment for Want of Answer.”
4. Though Section 185, L. O. L., authorizes the trial court, in certain eases, to take testimony and render judgment in accordance therewith after failure of defendant to answer, such a judgment is one for want of answer within Section 549, giving the right to appeal from a judgment or decree other than one by confession or for want of answer, and neither party can appeal therefrom.
Appeal and Error — Nature of Right — Statutory Provision.
5. In respect to appeals, the Supreme Court is of limited jurisdiction, and can entertain them only when they are within the purview of the statute.
From Multnomah: William L. Bradshaw, Judge.
This is an action by the state on the relation of George S. Shepherd against E. M. Simpson. From a judgment for relator, he appeals.
Motion to dismiss appeal denied, but appeal dismissed on court’s own motion.
Appeal Dismissed: Behearing Denied.
Mr. Claude McColloch, for the motion.
Mr. Walter H. Evans, District Attorney, and Mr. George H. Shepherd, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice MoNary
delivered the opinion of the court.
- This is a motion to dismiss an appeal; the movent assigning two reasons therefor: (1) That appellant is in no sense aggrieved by the judgment, inasmuch as the court gave him "everything prayed for"; (2) that "there has ceased to be, if there ever was, any controversy between the parties."
Historically the case presents this situation: The relator, Geo. S. Shepherd, for a period of time prior to December 9, 1911, the date of the contest in question, was captain of the Oregon Naval Militia. The time of the annual election arriving, defendant E. M. Simpson, contested with relator his right to a reelection. The canvassing board declared defendant elected to the office of captain of the Oregon Naval Militia, whereupon relator, conformable to the provisions of Section 368 et seq., L. O. L., brought this action in "ie name of the state against defendant for usurpation of the office. Service of process was made upon defendant, but, no appearance being made, defendant's default was noted and a judgment for want of an answer entered. After trial the lower court adjudged that defendant never qualified for the office to which he had been elected, and, in the absence of any lawfully chosen successor, appellant was the lawful incumbent of the office of captain of the Oregon Naval Militia. Relator, feeling displeased with the judgment of the lower court, brings this appeal and, when perfecting the same, served a notice thereof on defendant, who now appears and urges his motion to dismiss the appeal.
Section 550, L. O. L., indicating the manner in which an appeal shall be taken and perfected, states in substance that, if an appeal is not taken in open court, the party desiring to appeal may cause a notice thereof to be served on "such adverse party or parties as have appeared in the action or suit. ' ' Defendant not having appeared in the lower court, it became unnecessary, in view of the statute to have served him with notice of appeal, as the section limits those to be served with notice to such only as have "appeared" in the suit or' action. Appellant, in notifying defendant of the appeal, performed an act of supererogation which created no additional rights in defendant: United States Inv. Corp. v. Portland Hospital, 40 Or. 524 (64 Pac. 644, 67 Pac. 194, 56 L. R. A. 627).
A defendant, in making a default, impliedly invites the court to grant unto plaintiff all the relief to which his pleadings show him entitled, and he cannot be heard to complain if plaintiff labors under the belief that an appeal is necessary in order to establish the rights which he deemed his pleadings warrant. The statute expressly withholds the right of appeal from a defendant who permits a judgment or decree to be entered against him by default and by implication inhibits him from assailing an appeal taken from a judgment which defendant acquiesced in being entered.
Notwithstanding defendant's inability to attack appellant on appeal, has the latter a right of appeal? Section 549, L. O. L. reads: "Any party to a judgment or decree other than a judgment or decree given by confession, or for want of an answer, may appeal therefrom. The party appealing is known as the appellant, and the adverse party as the respondent; but the title of the action is not changed in consequence of the appeal." The language of the statute plainly inhibits both plaintiff and defendant from taking an appeal from a judgment or decree given by confession or for want of an answer, as it reads, "Any party," to a judgment or decree, so that when a sole defendant, as in this case, or all of the defendants when more than one, permit a judgment or decree to be entered for want of an answer or by confession, neither plaintiff nor defendant has a right of appeal. While this rule may seem harsh, yet it necessarily follows from a simple reading of the statute.
Believing this court is without jurisdiction in the premises, this appeal is dismissed by the court sua sponte.
Motion to dismiss overruled. Appeal dismissed by court on its own motion. Motion Overruled.
Appeal Dismissed by Court : Rehearing Denied.
Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice Bean concur.