Case Name: Milwaukee Elevator Company, Appellant, vs. Feuchtwanger, imp., Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1910-01-11
Citations: 141 Wis. 266
Docket Number: 
Parties: Milwaukee Elevator Company, Appellant, vs. Feuchtwanger, imp., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Milwaukee Elevator Company, Appellant, vs. Feuchtwanger, imp., Respondent.
December 9, 1909
January 11, 1910.
Appearance: General or special?
Appearance by a defendant specially for tlie purpose only of moving tliat the service of summons be set aside and the action dismissed with costs, does not constitute a general appearance.
Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: W. J. TiteNee, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
For the appellant there was a brief by Olwell & Drought, and oral argument by A. A. dwell.
For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of F. G. Bschweiler. ,

Opinion:
Wikslow, C. J.
The defendant is a nonresident of the' state, and the summons herein was served upon him while he was temporarily in the state, in actual and necessary attendance upon court in an action to which he was a party, and hence exempt from the service of process. Upon motion the service was set aside and an order made dismissing the action with motion costs. From this order the plaintiff appeals on the' ground that, although the defendant stated that he appeared specially, his motion was not merely to vacate the service, but to dismiss the action with costs.
It is undoubtedly true that in some jurisdictions such a motion constitutes a general appearance, but this court, in Kingsley v. G. N. R. Co. 91 Wis. 380, 64 N. W. 1036, held that the identical motion made here did not constitute a general appearance. Following that case, the order appealed from must be affirmed.
By the Court. — It is so ordered.