" (Emphasis added.) (To same effect, see Bettey v. City of Sidney (Mont.), supra, 257 P. 1007, 1009-1010; Hill Military Academy v. City of Portland, 152 Ore. 272 [ 53 P.2d 55, 60]; 62 C.J.S. § 225(b), p. 412.) This appears to be a valid distinction, one applicable to the ordinance now under consideration.
In Miller v. McKenna, 23 Cal.2d 774, 782, 147 P.2d 531, 536, it used this language: 'Among the jurisdictional requisites are * * * sufficient notice and opportunity for hearing to constitute compliance with due process.' The type of notice to which a party is entitled is indicated in Hill Military Academy v. Portland, 152 Or. 272, 53 P.2d 55, 58, wherein it is said that he must be notified of the time and place of hearing, and that he shall have a right to be present and make objections. No such opportunity was given the moving party herein.