Court Opinion

ID: 9643241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:23:39.72097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:58.703696
License: Public Domain

Holt, J. (dissenting). On the record before us, I think the case should be affirmed for the reason that appellant entered its appearance and thereby recognized the jurisdiction of the court over it for all purposes. Appellant filed “MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE MATTERS THERETO RELATED.” In this motion, appellant, after alleging that it was entering its appearance for the sole purpose of quashing service of summons, then asked the court to require appellee to allege specifically “Whether the defendant (appellant) is a foreign or a domestic corporation, etc.” In thus seeking the aid of the trial court to require the appellee to amend his complaint and state whether it was a foreign or a domestic corporation, it was asking for affirmative relief, and implied the jurisdiction of the court for all purposes. As I construe our decisions, our rule is that when one seeks to take advantage of want of jurisdiction, he must first object on that ground alone and must keep out of the court for every other purpose. Had appellant confined liis motion to quashing the service of summons alone, asked for and secured a ruling of the court against him, then in another motion preserved his right to quash service of summons, answered or asked for any affirmative relief, his appearance would not have been considered as a waiver of such objection to the service upon it. In Robinson v. Bossinger, 195 Ark. 445, 112 S. W. 2d 637, this court in an opinion by Judge Prank G. Smith, announced the rule in this language: “After the objection to the jurisdiction had been made and overruled, and exceptions saved and property carried into the answer, asking for or agreeing to a continuance under these circumstances is not an attempt to secure affirmative relief, and is not inconsistent with the special appearance. * * * ¡j£ thg defendant, being sued in a court that has not jurisdiction ratione personae, excepts to the jurisdiction when he first appears in the suit, and urges the exception before making any other defense, and if the exception is overruled, he is not compelled to allow judgment to go against him by default, but may thereafter resort to any other appropriate means of defense, without reiterating his- protest against the jurisdiction of the court, and without thereby creating a presumption that he has abandoned.his exception to the jurisdiction of the court. When a judge has erroneously overruled an exception to his jurisdiction, there is no good reason why the exceptor should continue to remind the judge of his error at every stage of the proceedings, in order to avoid a presumption that he (the exceptor) acquiesces in the erroneous ruling.’ ” In Searcy Wholesale Grocer Co. v. Balts, 209 Ark. 620, 192 S. W. 2d 111, we held that where, as here, a party filed a motion reciting that it was appearing solely for the purpose of the motion but “sought the aid of-the court to require appellee to amend the complaint as to whether it was a corporation or a partnership, ’ ’ impliedly conceded the jurisdiction of the court for all purposes, and in Federal Land Bank of St. Louis v. Gladish, 176 Ark. 267, 2 S. W. 2d 696, we said: “Broadly stated, any action on tlie part of the defendant, except to object to the jurisdiction over his person,, which recognized the case as in court, will constitute a general appearance.’ 4 C. J. 1333. * * * ‘ ( < There are numerous cases in which the defendant has been held to waive any question of jurisdiction over his person by taking some step to contest the cause upon the merits after his motion on special appearance has been overruled. One seeking to take advantage of want of jurisdiction in every such case must, according to these decisions, object on that ground alone. He must keep out of court for every other purpose. If he goes in for any purpose incompatible with the supposition that the court has no power or jurisdiction on account of defective service of process upon him, he goes in and submits for all the purposes of personal jurisdiction with respect to himself, and cannot afterwards be heard to make objection.’ 2E. C. L. 340.” Accordingly, I think the ease should be affirmed.