Facts
On 24 March 1986, S. filed a debt collection request with the Saanen debt collection office against [A.] for CHF 1,075,000 plus interest. The debt collection office attempted to serve the payment order No. 4815 personally at A.'s place of residence in Gstaad, but this failed several times. The payment order was then served on 22 April 1986 on lawyer X. in Zurich, who had previously represented [A.] in another matter. Lawyer X. filed an objection to the payment order.
[A.], through his lawyer [Y.], filed a complaint with the cantonal supervisory authority on 14 July 1986 and requested the nullification of the debt collection, as he had never received the payment order and lawyer X. had no mandate. However, the supervisory authority did not enter into the complaint, as A.'s lawyer [Y.] had been informed of the payment order at the latest on 16 June 1986 when the file dossier with a copy of the payment order was served on him.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses A.'s appeal. It finds that the allegedly new facts, according to which [A.] only learned of the payment order on 8 July 1986, could and should have been presented to the cantonal supervisory authority. Therefore, the requirements for a supplementation of the facts according to Art. 79 para. 1 OG are not met.
Furthermore, the defective service of the payment order did not cause any legal disadvantages to [A.],…