John Romig v. Myrtle Gillett
Decision Date | 17 November 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 52,52 |
Parties | JOHN ROMIG and Daniel W. Harding. Appts. , v. MYRTLE GILLETT |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On February 2, 1895, Don A. Gillett made and delivered to John Romig a note for $700, secured by a mortgage on 80 acres in Garfield county, Oklahoma. On February 6, 1895, the mortgagor sold and conveyed the real estate to Myrtle Gillett. On March 11, 1896, the mortgagee, Romig, commenced an action of foreclosure in the district court of that county against Don A. Gillett and Myrtle Gillett. In the petition, Myrtle Gillett was alleged to have some interest in the real estate, but junior and subsequent to plaintiff's mortgage. A summons was issued and returned not served, the sheriff certifying that the defendants were not found in Garfield county. On June 2, plaintiff filed an affidavit for publication, which affidavit disclosed fully the nature of the action and the relief sought, and added:
'Affiant further says that he is unable, and that the plaintiff is unable by using due diligence, to obtain service of summons on the said defendants within the territory of Oklahoma.
'Affiant further states that on the—day of March, 1896, he caused a summons to be issued in said cause for said defendants, directed to the sheriff of Garfield county, Oklahoma territory. Sheriff made return, 'Defendants not found in my county.'
'Affiant further states upon information and belief that the said defendants Don A. Gillett and Myrtle Gillett are nonresidents of the territory of Oklahoma, and that service of summons cannot be made on the said defendants Don A. Gillett and Myrtle Gillett within the said territory of Oklahoma, and that said plaintiff wishes to obtain service upon said defendants by publication; and further, affiant sayeth not.'
Publication was made and proof thereof filed as required by the statutes. On December 18, 1896, a judgment of foreclosure was entered against both defendants, and a sale of the real estate ordered. An order of sale was issued on January 20, 1897. A sale was made to the plaintiff and confirmed by the court March 1, 1897, and an order entered directing the sheriff to execute a deed to the purchaser and put him in possession. A deed was accordingly made and the plaintiff put in possession on March 9, 1897. Thereafter Daniel W. Harding purchased the property from the plaintiff Romig, received a deed therefor and entered into possession on March 10, 1897. He improved the property, which up to that time was unimproved prairie land, by the erection of three residences and other permanent structures of the value of $2,000, paid taxes to the amount of $200, and has ever since resided thereon.
On May 11, 1898, Myrtle Gillett filed a motion to set aside the judgment, and all proceedings had thereunder, on the ground that the court had never acquired any jurisdiction; that she was, at all times during the pendency of the action, a resident of the territory of Oklahoma, living in an adjoining county and within 20 miles of the mortgaged real estate, and that she had no knowledge of the institution or prosecution of the cause until long after the sale of the land by the sheriff. Upon the hearing of this motion the court entered an order setting aside the judgment and all subsequent proceedings, and directing that she be put in immediate possession of the premises. This order and judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory on June 30, 1900 (10 Okla. 186, 62 Pac. 805), whereupon the case was brought here on appeal.
The statutes of Oklahoma of 1893, which were in force at the time of these proceedings, required that actions for the foreclosure of a mortgage be brought in the county in which the real estate is situated. Section 3950 authorized service by publication in such cases 'where any or all of the defendants reside out of the territory, or where the plaintiff, with due diligence, is unable to make service of summons upon such defendant or defendants within the territory.' Sections 3951, 3955, and 4498 read as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wirtz v. Gordon
... ... 465; ... Haggart v. Wilczinski, 5 Cir., 143 F. 22, 26; ... Romig v. Gillett, 187 U.S. 111, 117, 23 S.Ct. 40, 47 ... L.Ed. 97; Bryan v ... ...
-
Smetal Corp. v. West Lake Inv. Co.
... ... Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189, 35 S.Ct. 579, 59 L.Ed ... 910; Romig v. Gillett, 187 U.S. 111, 23 S.Ct. 40, 47 ... L.Ed. 97; Power Mfg. Co ... ...
-
Mcdaniel v. Mcelvy
... ... grantees, or assignees, William Bailey and John C. McGhee, ... as trustees, if living, and, if dead, their unknown ... 12 Ann. Cas. 829. Under an Oklahoma statute, construed in ... Romig v. Gillett, 187 U.S. 111, 23 S.Ct. 40, 47 ... L.Ed. 97, which authorizes ... ...
- Richmond v. City Of Richmond