Court Opinion

ID: 9599355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:18:13.943221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:05.217153
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*658Jaqua & Wheatley and William G. Wheatley, Portland, for the petition.
McAlIister, J., did not participate in this decision.
TONGUE, J.
Defendant’s petition for rehearing contends that this court did not decide its previous contention that the summons as served upon it was so fatally defective as to he insufficient to confer jurisdiction over it, hut affirmed the order of the lower court denying its motion to quash the summons upon the ground that defendant had not shown that it suffered prejudice.
 We agree that lack of prejudice does not provide a proper ground on which to deny a motion to quash a fatally defective summons. By our opinion in this ease, however, we held, and now hold, that any defects in this summons were not of such a nature as to render it fatally defective and that the trial court properly held that it was sufficient to confer jurisdic*659tion over defendant. See State ex rel Kalich v. Bryson, 253 Or 418, 421-23, 453 P2d 659 (1969).①
Defendant’s petition for rehearing would also reargue its previous contention that the trial court abused “sound legal discretion” in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment. While members of this court, if sitting as trial judges, might have granted that motion, we cannot properly say that the trial judge abused “sound legal discretion” in denying that motion under the facts and circumstances of this ease, particularly in view of the broad discretion conferred upon trial judges by the terms of ORS 18.160.
The petition for rehearing is denied.

 Defendant also says that the reference in our opinion to the dissenting opinion in State ex rel Kalich v. Bryson, 253 Or 418, 424, 453 P2d 659 (1969), is misleading. That reference, however, was made only in connection with the statement of a contention made in this case, and not in approval of that contention. Also, of course, since the decision in Kalich ORS 15.040 has been amended. See Oregon Laws 1971, ch 192.