1. Judgment--Collateral Attack.

' An attempt by an independent proceeding to impeach a foreclosure decree rendered in another court is a collateral attack on such decree.

2. Same — Jurisdictional Pacts — Imperfections of Statement.

Where a foreclosure decree was based on an order for the publication of summons as against certain nonresident defendants, the latter on a collateral attack on such foreclosure decree could not rely on mere imperfections or uncertainty of statement of jurisdictional facts, in the affidavit for the order for publication.

[Ed. Note.- — Por cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 30, Judgment, § 928.1

3. PROCESS — PUBLICATION—JURISDICTION—PRESUMPTIONS.

Where jurisdiction of a proceeding in rem is sought to be obtained by service by publication, jurisdiction will not be assumed and exercised on the general ground that the subject-matter of the suit is within the power of the court, but can be sustained only on a showing that the statutory provisions for acquiring jurisdiction were followed with exactness.

[Ed. Note.- — Por cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Process, § 329.]

4. Judgment — Collateral Attack — Process—Affidavit for Publication.

On collateral attack, on a judgment rendered on service by publication, the affidavit for the order of publication will be understood to speak the truth, and it will not be presumed that there was other evidence respecting the fact, or that it was otherwise than as averred.

5. Same — Extrinsic Evidence.

Where a foreclosure decree was based on service by publication authorized by an order granted on an affidavit, the affidavit is the only record that can be considered on a collateral attack on such decree for the purpose of ascertaining whether the facts authorized the order of publication.

[Ed. Note. — Por cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 30, Judgment, § 940.]

6. Process — Affidavit for Publication — Diligence.

Where the affidavit for publication of a summons as to certain nonresident defendants alleged that affiant had inquired of one of the executors of the will of the decedent through whom the property in question passed to such defendants as to their whereabouts, and was told that they were then in a particular orphan asylum in San Francisco under the charge of the executor giving the information, the affidavit sufficiently showed diligence on the part of the affiant.

[Ed. Note.' — Por cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Process, §§ 102, 118.]

7. Same — Nonresidents.

An affidavit for publication of a summons as against a nonresident minor declared that a summons had been delivered to- the sheriff of the county for service and had been returned “Not Pound,” after diligent inquiry, etc. The affidavit then recited that inquiry from the executor of the estate from which the defendant’s interest in the property in controversy was acquired, had disclosed that the defendant, who was a minor, was in charge of the executor and residing in a private orphan asylum in California, and that “therefore” a summons could not be handed to the defendant within the state. Held, that such allegations without a eopy of the return of the sheriff on the summons sought to be served constituted prima facie evidence of the defendant’s absence from the state.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Process, § 118.]

8. Same — Nonresidents.

The affidavit also sufficiently showed that defendant was prima facie a nonresident.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Process, § 118.]

9. Infants — Pbocess—Service on Minors — Publication.

B. & O. Comp. Or. § 55, provides for the service of summons on a minor under 14 years of age, by delivering a copy to such minor personally, and also to his father, mother, or guardian, or if there be none within the state, then to any person having the care or control of the minor, or with whom he resides or in whose service he is employed. Held, that such section did not apply to service on nonresident minors without the state, which could be had by publication as authorized by section 56.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Infants, §§ 261. 265.]

10. Same — Mailing Copt.

B. & C. Comp. Or. § 57, directs that a copy of the summons and complaint be mailed to the nonresident defendant, when his place of residence is known. Held, that though such section applied both to nonresident adults and minors, it did not require the mailing of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person with whom a nonresident minor defendant resided.