Van Santvoord v. Roethler
| Decision Date | 26 June 1899 |
| Citation | 57 P. 628,35 Or. 250 |
| Parties | VAN SANTVOORD et al. v. ROETHLER. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Baker county; Robert Eakin, Judge.
Action by Seymour Van Santvoord and another, as receivers, against Peter Roethler. From a judgment in favor of defendant plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.
This is an action upon a judgment of a sister state. The complaint recites, in brief, that the plaintiffs are receivers of the Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Company, a corporation; that on the 4th day of March, 1886, in the district court for Brule county, Dakota territory, the said company recovered a judgment against the defendant for the sum of $272.10, which was duly docketed on the 19th day of March, 1886; that on the 14th day of December, 1889, an execution was issued thereon, and thereafter returned nulla bona; that it is now a good, valid, and subsisting judgment of the state of South Dakota, and at all times since its rendition was and now is in full force and effect; that plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege that the defendant left the state of South Dakota during the year 1890, returning to the state of Oregon in said year, and that he then and there, and at such time, acquired a residence therein, and about 1891 removed and departed therefrom and lost his residence therein, and resided elsewhere, for a period of about three years, but thereafter returned to the said state of Oregon, and has ever since resided within its borders; that defendant was out of, and absent from, this state at the time of the rendition of said judgment, and did not come or return thereto until less than 10 years prior to the commencement of this action; that at no time prior to June 29, 1897, had defendant any real or personal property within the state of Oregon upon which the plaintiffs, or either of them, could secure the necessary lien to enable them to bring an action against him while a nonresident. A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint on the grounds--First, that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and, second, that the action has not been commenced within the time limited by law. The demurrer was sustained, and, judgment having been entered dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal.
J.B Messick, for appellants.
J.J Heilner, for respondent.
WOLVERTON C.J. (after stating the facts).
The sole question we are called on to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alaska Credit Bureau of Juneau v. Fenner, 5925-A.
...statute did not apply to non-residents was followed in Crane v. Jones, 1893, 24 Or. 419, 33 P. 869, and in Van Santvoord v. Roethler, 1899, 35 Or. 250, 57 P. 628, 76 Am.St.Rep. 472. But the doctrine was practically repudiated in Jamieson v. Potts, 55 Or. 292, 105 P. 93, page 94, 25 L.R.A., ......
-
Jamieson v. Potts
... ... That case was ... followed and applied in Crane v. Jones, 24 Or. 419, ... 33 P. 869, and in Van Santvoord v. Roethler, 35 Or ... 250, 57 P. 628, 76 Am.St.Rep. 472. It is upon these cases ... that defendant mainly relies to support his ... ...
-
Forsyth v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
...2d, Conflict of Laws § 142. Oregon is committed to this general rule. Conner v. Spencer, 304 F.2d 485 (CA9 1962); Van Santvoord v. Roethler, 35 Or. 250, 57 P. 628 (1899). Consequently, the Oregon statute, ORS 12.080(4), 5 applies, and the action obviously is not barred under Oregon law. Eve......
-
Conner v. Spencer
...upon in Oregon courts are subject to the limitations periods applicable to comparable local causes of action. See Van Santvoord v. Roethler, 35 Or. 250, 57 P. 628 (1899). The Oregon period of limitations applicable to personal injury actions is two years (Or.Rev.Stat. 12.110), and the prese......