
    Clark v. Hotailing
    1. Practice: A petition is not the proper remedy to avoid a decree of foreclosure after it has been enforced by sale and deed made by the master, although it may have been void for want of effectual service of process.
    Clark held a mortgage against Hotailing, and, in 1858, filed his bill to foreclose the same. Having filed his affidavit showing such facts as are required to be shown in order to authorize a publication of notice of the pendency of suit to a non-resident defendant, he proceeded in the cause, according to the usual course in such cases, had his decree by default, a sale; a confirmation and a deed, all the proceedings being regular in point- of form. After all these proceedings had been had, .Hotailing filed his petition in the same cause, alleging that he was, during all the time these proceedings were being had, a resident of Nebraska, and did not know of them, and praying to have the orders and decrees set aside.. The court made an order according to the prayer of the petition. Clark appealed to this court.
    
      Hedido & Briggs, for appellant.
    
      J. M. Woolworth, contra.
   The court,

by Kellogg, Ch. J.,

held that it was inadmissible to assail and avoid all these proceedings, which have been consummated by a conveyance, by a simple petition filed in the cause. This can only be done by an original bill.

Order reversed.  