Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 Or. 69

Davis v. Magnes

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1911

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1911-02-14

From Coos: James W. Hamilton, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice McBride. This is a suit by Martha Davis to have admeasured her dower interest in certain lands in Coos County. Samuel D. Magnes, Emma Magnes, his wife, Henry Sengstacken and Agnes R. Sengstacken, his wife, were made parties defendant, and each answered, claiming title to certain portions of the land mentioned in the complaint, namely, 23.89 acres of tide land, situate on Coos Bay.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1928

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““An execution sale without proper notice is in any event a mere irregularity, and such sale cannot be attacked collaterally: Freeman, Executions, § 286, and cases there cited.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Meno v. Otto

““If the order had been taken without the appearance of the execution defendant in court, a different question might have arisen.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Meno v. Otto

Relies on Dolph v. Barney · McRae v. Daviner · Mathews v. Eddy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affikmed · Decided 1911-02-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice McBride

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶21. We think the order of confirmation of the sheriff’s sale by the court was conclusive of its regularity, and that it cannot now be impeached. It was made without objection years ago when all parties were present in court. The court thus had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, and, if its action was erroneous, an appeal to this court from the order was the proper and only remedy to correct it. It is now claimed that under the circumstances the sale of the lands in question was void, but the court having full power to adjudicate that question, at the time the order of confirmation was made, decided otherwise. If the order had been taken without the appearance of the execution defendant in court, a different question might have arisen. But here the defendant, with full knowledge of his rights, failed to assert them, and neither he nor his grantees ought now to be heard to question a judgment so taken: Mathews v. Eddy, 4 Or. 225; Dolph v. Barney, 5 Or. 191; Strong v. Barnhart, 6 Or. 93; McRae v. Daviner, 8 Or. 63.

¶32. An execution sale without proper notice is in any event a mere irregularity, and such sale cannot be attacked collaterally. Freeman, Executions, § 286, and cases there cited.

¶4The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶5Affirmed.

/58/or/69 · .json · Public domain