![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Every fact necessary to sustain the jurisdiction, must appear from the record or the judgment is void.
Plaintiff landowner, a citizen of California, brought the action to recover the property that was the subject of a previous suit. The property was sold to defendant, a citizen of Oregon, after judgment was entered against plaintiff in the other suit. Plaintiff challenged the validity of the judgment, arguing that it was invalid because it was improperly entered against him as an out-of-state landowner. Plaintiff maintained that the other court could not acquire jurisdiction to reach the property of a non-resident, or subject it to the payment of his debts, owed in the state, except by the actual seizure of such property contemporaneous with the commencement of the proceeding or before the rendition of the judgment therein.
Did the previous court act without authority in making the order for publication of the summons and rendering the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the previous suit?
The court ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding that there was nothing in the affidavit of the plaintiff in the previous suit that tended to show that he had "a cause of action" against the current plaintiff. So far, then, as the affidavit was concerned, the previous court had acted without authority in making the order for publication of the summons and the same, together with the judgment following it, was simply void.