Warren v. Dick

• Decision Date: 24 February 1885
• Citation: 22 N.W. 462,17 Neb. 241
• Parties: MARY M. WARREN AND CHARLES WARREN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JAMES A. DICK, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

22 N.W. 462

17 Neb. 241

MARY M. WARREN AND CHARLES WARREN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JAMES A. DICK, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 24, 1885

ERROR to the district court for Cass county. Tried below before POUND, J.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Sam. M Chapman and James S. Matthews, for plaintiffs in error.

M. A Hartigan, for defendant in error.

OPINION

REESE, J.

This was an action in ejectment instituted in the court below for the possession of lot number twelve, in block number eighteen, in the city of Plattsmouth. The trial in the district court resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the action--defendant in error here--and the defendant in the court below alleges error and brings the cause into this court for review.

The title of the defendant in error is unquestioned, unless he has been divested of that title by certain attachment proceedings against him in the district court of Cass county in 1877-8. The plaintiffs in error allege title as grantees of the purchaser at sheriff's sale under the order of sale in attachment.

In August, 1877, John Black commenced proceedings in attachment against the defendant in error in the district court of Cass county. The property in question in this action was levied upon and the defendant in error was notified by publication. Judgment was had, an order of sale issued, and the property sold to C. H. Parmele by the sheriff at public sale. The sale was made on the 24th day of December, 1877. On the 3d day of January, 1878, the sale was confirmed, and a deed ordered. The deed was executed by the sheriff on the 4th day of April of the same year. It appears that Parmele, soon after receiving his deed, went into possession of the property and retained the possession until the 24th day of May, 1882, when he sold and conveyed it to plaintiffs in error. During this time he paid the taxes and made certain improvements, besides paying taxes for previous years. Upon the purchase of the property by plaintiffs in error they took possession, and have retained possession until the present time, relying in this action upon the title from Parmele. In September, 1882, defendant in error appeared in the attachment suit, filed his answer to the merits, and on his motion the judgment was opened, under the provisions of section 82 of the civil code, that he might make his defense to the action. It seems to be conceded by the parties that no further defense was made to that action, and that judgment was again entered in favor of the plaintiff, Black. But there is nothing in the record before us showing the final disposition of the case.

The contention in this case on the part of plaintiffs in error is, that their title to the property in dispute is unassailable under the provisions of section eighty-two of the code without reference to the final disposition of that case, as by that section it is provided that "the title to any property, the subject of the judgment sought to be opened, which by it, or in consequence of it, shall have passed to a purchaser in good faith, shall not be affected by any proceedings under this section." It is also insisted that if there were any such irregularities in the attachment proceedings as would avoid the sale to Parmele, the general appearance and answering to the merits by defendant in error was a waiver of all questions of jurisdiction and cured any such defects, if they existed, prior to the filing of such answer.

It is contended by defendant in error that the attachment proceedings were void, and that Parmele took no title by his sheriff's deed, and that his after appearance could give no life or vitality to the void proceedings had before that time.

The only objection to the attachment proceedings is that the notice which was published contained no description of the attached property, and therefore the court never acquired any jurisdiction in the case. The notice referred to is as follows:

"In the Cass county district court of the second judicial district of Nebraska.

"John Black, plaintiff, vs. James H. Dick and Margaret A. Dick, defendants.

"To the defendants, James H. Dick and Margaret A. Dick, above named, non-resident defendants:

"You and each of you will take notice that John Black, of the county of Cass, and state of Nebraska, did, on the 3d day of August, 1877, file his petition in the Cass county district court, within and for the county of Cass, in said state of Nebraska, against the said James H. Dick and Margaret A. Dick, defendants, setting forth that the said James H. Dick did, on the 13th day of Nov., 1876, give to the said John Black his, the said James H. Dick's, promissory note for the sum of forty dollars, with interest at 12 per cent per annum, interest payable semi-annually, which time has long since passed, and yet he has not paid said sum, nor any part thereof, but the same remains due and wholly unpaid, and in order to collect the same said John Black has commenced a suit in attachment.

"You are hereby notified to appear and answer said petition September 17th, 1877, according to law and the rules of said court, or judgment will be entered against you by default, and your property sold to satisfy the same."

(Signed, &c.)

The cases of Wescott v. Archer, 12 Neb. 345, 11 N.W 491, ...