Court Opinion

ID: 9944100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 16:17:15.905765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:13.580976
License: Public Domain

ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR BY UNIVERSAL C.I.T. CREDIT CORPORATION
On January 7, 1957, judgment was entered by this Court in this cause reversing the judgment of the court below and dismissing the cause without prejudice, and further adjudging that the appellant have and recover of and from the appellees all of the costs of this appeal to be taxed. A suggestion of error filed by the appellee, Turner Watts, on January 22, 1957, was overruled on January 28, 1957. On February 2, 1957, the appellee, Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation, filed a motion to retax the costs, averring that it was merely a nominal party to the litigation and had not participated in the appeal *Page 752 
or made any appearance therein, and praying that the judgment entered be modified, amended and reformed so as to eliminate any liability or responsibility of the said Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation for the costs of this appeal. This motion was overruled on February 25, 1957. The appellee, Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation, then filed on February 27, 1957, what it submits as a suggestion of error to the action of the Court in overruling its said motion. In this latter suggestion of error, the Corporation raised for the first time a question of jurisdiction, contending that the Court was without jurisdiction to render a judgment against it for the costs for the reason that no summons to answer the appeal had been issued and served upon it as required by Sections 1189 and 1186 of the Mississippi Code of 1942. The Court called upon the other parties for a response to this suggestion of error and only the appellant, The Home Insurance Company, responded.
The appellant contends in its response (1) that under the authority of Inman v. Travelers Insurance Company, 154 Miss. 611,122 So. 537, the motion to retax costs should be deemed a suggestion of error and that the suggestion of error now before the court is a second suggestion of error and cannot be entertained under Rule 14(3) of this Court providing that after a suggestion of error has been sustained or overruled by the Court no further suggestion of error shall be filed by any party; (2) that under Rule 16 of this Court no motion once disposed of or dismissed shall again be heard and that the suggestion of error now presented to the Court is an attempt to obtain a rehearing of the motion to retax costs; (3) that the Corporation entered its appearance in the appeal by filing its motion to retax the costs and waived any objection to the jurisdiction of the Court; (4) that the requirements of Sections 1189 and 1186 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 are procedural only and not jurisdictional; and (5) that since the question of *Page 753 
jurisdiction was not originally raised by the Corporation in its motion to retax costs, the same cannot now be raised.
(Hn 8) We are not unmindful, of course, of the rules of this Court prohibiting the filing of a second suggestion of error and providing that a motion once disposed of will not again be heard. Rule 33 of the Court, however, authorizes us to relax or dispense with the rules to prevent injustice, and we think that it is particularly appropriate to invoke this rule where a question of jurisdiction is involved. (Hn 9) Especially is this true since the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, and even by the Court of its own motion. Waits v. Black Bayou Drainage District, 186 Miss. 270, 185 So. 577. Without regard to the procedure by which the question of jurisdiction is now brought to the attention of the Court, we deem it proper to consider that question and pass upon it.
Section 1189 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 provides in part as follows: ". . . . . and in all civil cases, where the appeal is not perfected during the term of the court at which the judgment or decree complained of is rendered he (the clerk) shall issue a summons to the opposite party to appear and answer the appeal in the Supreme Court."
Section 1186 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 provides in part as follows: "The summons to answer the appeal shall be served by the sheriff of the proper county on the appellee or his attorney in fact or of record, at least ten days before the time when it is returnable, and shall be sent to the Supreme Court and filed in the case, but a certified copy of the summons and service shall be sufficient. . . ."
(Hn 10) It is conceded that no summons was issued and served upon the Corporation as required by the foregoing sections. The record shows that copies of the petition for appeal, the notice to the court reporter, the *Page 754 
assignments of error and briefs were furnished to counsel for the Corporation, but this served only to show that the Corporation had knowledge of the appeal. It was not a substitute for the issuance and service of the summons as required by the statutes and the Corporation's knowledge of the appeal was of no avail in the absence of a legal summons, or appearance or waiver by the Corporation. McCoy v. Watson, 154 Miss. 307, 122 So. 368; Burns v. Burns, 133 Miss. 485, 97 So. 814; Hyde Construction Co. v. Elton Murphy-Walter Travis, Inc., 86 So.2d 455. (Hn 11) The record discloses no formal waiver of the summons by the Corporation and no entry of appearance on the appeal. It is argued by the appellant that the filing of the motion to retax the costs constituted an entry of appearance and waiver of process, but that motion was filed after the entry of the judgment complained of and could not serve to give validity to the judgment if invalid for the want of proper process.
(Hn 12) In brief, we are presented with the question whether the requirements of Sections 1189 and 1186 of the Code of 1942 are procedural or jurisdictional. (Hn 13) We are of the opinion and hold that the requirements of said Code sections with respect to the issuance and service of a summons on an appellee are jurisdictional, and that compliance therewith is a prerequisite to the entry of a valid judgment against an appellee in the absence of an entry of appearance or waiver by such appellee.
Appellant cites and relies upon the case of Hartford A. I. Co. v. Nelson, 167 Miss. 63, 145 So. 889. In that case, however, the Court was construing Section 1156 of the Code of 1942 providing that where one or more parties to a judgment appeal therefrom, summons shall issue for such as do not join in the appeal. The Court held that said Code section was procedural and jurisdictional, saying that the purpose of the statute was to prevent the splitting of appeals with the inconvenience and difficulties resulting therefrom. The aforesaid *Page 755 
Code sections 1189 and 1186, however, make mandatory the issuance and service of a summons on the opposite party in the absence of a waiver of process or the entry of appearance. The Nelson case, supra, therefore, is not, in our opinion, applicable.
It is our conclusion that on this record the Court was without jurisdiction over the person of the Corporation to enter a judgment against it for the costs and that to that extent the judgment is invalid, and accordingly the suggestion of error to the action of the Court in overruling the motion of the appellee, Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation, to retax the costs is sustained, and the order overruling said motion is set aside and said motion is sustained and the judgment is modified to the extent that there is eliminated therefrom any liability or responsibility of the appellee, Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation for the costs of appeal.
Suggestion of error by Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation sustained.