Stadelman v. Miner

Decision Date15 April 1918
Docket NumberNo. 644,644
PartiesSTADELMAN et al. v. MINER et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. John M. Gearin, of Portland, Or., for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Guy C. H. Corliss, of Portland, Or., for defendants in Error.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The statutes of Oregon provide that, when it becomes necessary to sell real estate of a decedent in order to pay his debts (L. O. L. §§ 1252-1270), the administrator shall file a petition therefor, and that a citation shall issue to heirs known and unknown 'to appear at a term of court therein mentioned, not less than ten days after the service of such citation, to show cause, if any exist, why an order of sale should not be made as in the petition prayed for.' Section 1254. The statutes also provide for the service of unknown or nonresident heirs by publication for 'not less than four weeks, or for such further time as the court or judge may prescribe.' Section 1255.

In 1897 Charles W. Fletcher died intestate in Oregon. His administrator filed in the county court a petition for the sale of the decedent's real estate in order to pay debts; and the citation was ordered to be served upon the unknown or nonresident heirs by publication in a newspaper for four weeks. Publication was made in conformity to the order, the first publication being on June 17, 1902. Under the statute, the state court finds that the hearing on the petition should not have been held before July 24th. It was actually held on July 17th; and an order of sale was then entered by the county court under which the property was sold to Nelson, through whom Miner and Worden claim title by mesne conveyances. The deceased had left surviving two children who were nonresidents, Mrs. Stadelman and Henry H. Fletcher. Thereafter, these two and one Motley (a grantee from them of a part interest in the property) brought, in an appropriate state court of Oregon, an independent suit to quiet title and claimed to own the property on the ground that the order of the county court and the sale to Nelson thereunder were void. A decree was rendered by the trial court in their favor; and it was affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court of the state, where two curative acts were unsuccessfully invoked to sustain the validity of the Miner and Worden title. 83 Or. 348, 355, 155 Pac. 708, 163 Pac. 585, 983. A petition for rehearing was filed; and on January 30, 1917, the Supreme Court reversed its decision and the decree of the lower court and dis- missed the suit. It held that failure to observe the statutory requirement as to time for hearing was a defect rendering the order voidable merely and not void; that the defect did not operate to deprive the county court of jurisdiction; that the defects could have been availed of only in a direct attack; and that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Duane v. Merchants' Legal Stamp Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 23 Septiembre 1918
    ...the year 1915. We are unable to discern that these provisions are apposite to the issues here depending. See Stadelman v. Miner, 246 U. S. 544, 38 Sup. Ct. 359, 62 L. Ed. 875, and Ireland v. Woods, 246 U. S. 323, 38 Sup. Ct. 319, 62 L. Ed. 745. In each case let the entry be: Bill dismissed,......
  • United States v. Smelser
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 16 Enero 1937
  • Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 19 Febrero 1923
    ...Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U. S. 162, 166, 38 Sup. Ct. 58, 62 L. Ed. 221; Stadelman v. Miner, 246 U. S. 544, 546, 38 Sup. Ct. 359, 62 L. Ed. 875; Moss v. Ramey, 239 U. S. 538, 546, 36 Sup. Ct. 183, 60 L. Ed. 425; Gasquet v. Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 369, 37 Sup. Ct......
  • Harry B. Duane v. Merchants Legal Stamp Company & Others. Harry B. Duane & another
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 21 Septiembre 1918
    ... ... We are unable ... to discern that these provisions are apposite to the issues ... here depending. See Stadelman ... We are unable ... to discern that these provisions are apposite to the issues ... here depending. See Stadelman v. Miner ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT