This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a tract of land in Oregon. The plaintiff claims ownership through a United States patent, while the defendant claims ownership through a sheriff's deed obtained from a sale on execution of a judgment against the plaintiff. The validity of the judgment is in question, as it was obtained in a case where the plaintiff was a non-resident of the state, not personally served with process, and did not appear in court. The lower court's decision regarding the validity of the judgment is being reviewed. The court is considering whether defects in the affidavit can be used to challenge the judgment collaterally. The plaintiff argues that the judgment against them is void because they were not personally served with process or appeared in the action, and that the property in question cannot be subjected to the payment of the demand of a resident creditor except by a proceeding in rem. The State has the power to subject non-residents' property within its limits to the payment of its citizens' demands against them, as long as it is necessary to control the disposition of the property. Jurisdiction can be acquired by serving process on the defendant or by proceeding against the defendant's property within the court's jurisdiction. If the defendant is not within the jurisdiction, a writ of attachment may be issued and levied on any of their property, and a publication may be made warning them to appear. If the defendant does not appear, the case becomes a proceeding in rem, and the only effect is to subject the attached property to the payment of the demand found to be due to the plaintiff. The lower court's decision regarding the validity of the judgment is being reviewed.

The legal case discusses the validity of substituted service of a summons or writ to subject property within a state belonging to a non-resident to a judgment. The Court of Appeals held that personal service or actual notice is not always necessary for due process of law, and constructive notice is sufficient as long as it reasonably apprises the party of the legal steps taken against them and provides an opportunity to defend themselves. The court affirmed the authority of a State over persons and property within its limits, including through substituted service, and held that a judgment obtained through such means can be used to reach property within the State and subject it to the court's judgment. However, Justice Hunt dissented, stating that personal notice is not necessary for a suit against non-residents, and a state has the right to subject property within its limits to payment of debts, even if the owner is a non-resident.