Yeaton v. Barnhart
| Decision Date | 30 July 1915 |
| Citation | 150 P. 742,78 Or. 249 |
| Parties | YEATON ET UX. v. BARNHART ET AL. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Yamhill County; Webster Holmes, Judge.
Action for an injunction and to quiet title by Elias M. Yeaton and wife against C. L. Barnhart and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and decree entered quieting plaintiff's title.
This is a suit to enjoin the sale of real property, and to quiet the title thereto. The material averments of the complaint, as far as involved herein, are to the effect: That the plaintiffs, Elias M. Yeaton and Alice E. Yeaton, are husband and wife, and the defendant W. G. Henderson is the duly elected, qualified, and acting sheriff of Yamhill county, Or. That Stephen Brynjolfson died intestate in that county November 13, 1909, seised in fee simple of lot 9 in block 2 and lots 7, 8, and 9 in block 3, of Foster's addition to the town of Sheridan in that county, and leaving as his only heirs the defendants Lena Yeaton, a daughter 26 years old and Helga Brynjolfson, his widow. That on November 19, 1909 the county court of Yamhill county duly appointed Lena Yeaton administratrix of the decedent's estate, the personal property of which was of the value of $50 and was wholly exhausted in paying a part of the indebtedness which amounted to $300. That on March 20, 1913, the administratrix applied to the county court for leave to sell the real property of the estate to pay the indebtedness thereof and the costs and expenses of the administration. That a citation was thereupon issued to the widow and personally served upon her at Portland, Or., where she was then residing, requiring her to appear at the courtroom in Yamhill county on April 5, 1913 and show cause why the petition should not be granted, but she did not appear or file any objections, and at the time last stated an order was made directing a sale of the real property of the estate for the purposes specified. That, complying with such command, the administratrix published notice of the sale in the Sheridan Sun, a weekly newspaper, printed in that county, for five successive weeks, beginning April 10, 1913, and ending May 8th of that year, and at the time designated she sold the premises to the plaintiffs for $1,200; that being the highest sum offered therefor. That the sale was duly confirmed, May 27, 1913, whereupon the administratrix executed to the purchasers a deed of the premises, receiving the consideration therefor. That the plaintiffs instituted a suit in the circuit court of the state of Oregon for Yamhill county, against Andrew Pullen and others, to quiet the title to such real property, and the defendant C. L. Barnhart appearing asserted a lien upon the land by reason of a judgment he had secured in that court, September 21, 1911, against the defendant Lena Yeaton and her husband for $291.80, whereupon that suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed without prejudice. That judgments were obtained against the defendant Lena Yeaton and her husband in a justice's court of Polk county, Or., by the defendants N. Selig, June 30, 1911, for $103.98; Ethel Chambers, August 15, 1911, for $35; and Ed Rich, August 25, 1911, for $110.79--and the costs and disbursements in each action, transcripts of which judgments were filed and docketed in Polk county, October 6, 1913, and in Yamhill county, October 11th of that year. That each of such judgment creditors asserts some interest in or claims a lien upon the real property hereinbefore described. That from the purchase price so paid by the plaintiffs for the real property there was disbursed by the administratrix $440.19 in discharging the indebtedness of the estate, giving the items thereof. That, the administratrix having filed her final account, notice thereof was published, requiring all persons interested to file objections thereto prior to August 16, 1913, at 1 o'clock p. m.; but, none having been filed, the account was allowed in whole on August 20, 1913, and the estate ordered to be apportioned, whereupon the defendants Lena Yeaton and Helga Brynjolfson each received and retained one-half of $759.81, the remainder of the purchase price, as her distributive share. That each of the defendants had notice and knowledge of all the proceedings in the administration of the decedent's estate referred to herein, but neither of them made any objections to the settlement of the final account or undertook to secure any part of the sum ascertained to be due Lena Yeaton, by reason whereof each is and ought to be estopped now to assert or claim any lien upon the real property adverse to the plaintiffs. That on September 10, 1913, the defendant Barnhart caused to be issued on his judgment against the defendant Lena Yeaton and her husband an execution which was delivered to the defendant Henderson, who was directed to levy upon such real property, and unless he is restrained will obey the command, thereby clouding the title to the premises. That the plaintiffs had no notice or knowledge of any defect in the sale of the land or of any claim to or lien thereon, but purchased in good faith the premises of which they ever since have been in the possession, and that they have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
There are attached and made parts of the complaint copies of nearly all the proceedings in the administration of the decedent's estate, from the filing of the petition to sell the real property, and also of the judgments rendered in the justice's court, including transcripts thereof which have been filed for the purpose of creating liens on the premises. The defendants Selig, Rich, and Ethel Chambers jointly demurred to the complaint, on the ground inter alia that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of suit, and the defendants Barnhart and Henderson also jointly demurred to the initiatory pleading on the same basis. The defendants Lena Yeaton and Helga Brynjolfson did not appear in any manner. The demurrers were sustained, the temporary injunctions which had been granted were dissolved, and the suit dismissed, from which decree the plaintiffs appeal.
Oscar Hayter, of Dallas (Simpson & Lewis, of Sheridan, and Oscar Hayter, of Dallas, on the brief), for appellants. W. O. Sims, of Sheridan, and R. L. Conner, of McMinnville, for respondents.
MOORE, C.J. (after stating the facts as above).
The petition for the sale of the real property did not state the amount of the sales of personal property, the condition and probable value of the different lots of land, the amount and nature of any liens thereon, nor the names, ages, and residences of the heirs of the deceased, as required by the statute. L. O. L. § 1253. In Wright & Jones v. Edwards, 10 Or. 298, 307, a petition for leave to sell land belonging to a decedent's estate did not state the amount of sales of personal property, the charges, expenses, or claims remaining unsatisfied, nor describe the real property to be sold, or state its condition or value, nor was the application verified by the administrator or any one on his behalf, and it was held that the county court did not secure jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and, in ordering a sale of the premises, acted without authority, in consequence of which the proceedings were a nullity and conferred no right or title in or to the real property. In deciding that case, Mr. Justice Lord, speaking for the court, says:
"Where there is matter of substance upon which jurisdiction can hinge, mere errors or defects, although material in some respects, but which might have been avoided on appeal, cannot avail to condemn a judicial proceeding when, by lapse of time, an appeal is barred, which has become the foundation of title to property."
The plaintiff's counsel, relying on such excerpt to establish the rule governing this case, insists that, notwithstanding the failure of the application for leave to sell the real property to aver all the facts required by the statute, the petition stated sufficient to invoke an exercise of jurisdiction by the county court to authorize a sale of the land in order to discharge the indebtedness of the estate and to pay the expenses of the administration, and, this being so, an error was committed in dismissing the suit.
The answers interposed herein are equivalent to collateral attacks on the order of the county court, directing a sale of the real property, and to render those defenses availing the order assailed must necessarily be void. Van Fleet, Col. Attack, § 3.
It becomes important therefore to consider the nature of that tribunal, and the character of the proceedings undertaken to secure a sale of the land. The organic law of the state declares:
Section 1 of article 7 of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yeaton v. Barnhart
...from Circuit Court, Yamhill County; Webster Holmes, Judge. On petition for rehearing. Former opinion modified. For former opinion, see 150 P. 742. Oscar Hayter, of Dallas, for appellants. W. O. Sims, Sheridan, and R. L. Conner, of McMinnville, for respondents. MOORE, C.J. It is contended in......