Court Opinion

ID: 9550636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:39:30.406916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:03.732425
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stone
dissenting.
Without challenging the conclusion reached by the majority opinion, I think the issue as to the sufficiency of the statement of contest is not properly before the court. The only challenge raised by the motion to quash and the motion to dismiss now before us, was that of the sufficiency of service due (a) to the method of service, and (b) to the contended misnomer in the summons. I am not aware of any rule or statute or logical conclusion whereby a challenge to the jurisdiction of the person may be treated as a demurrer to the complaint under the code, or as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under our present rule, and in a statutory proceeding such as here involved, I think that, except as otherwise provided in the statute, we should be guided by our customary rules of procedure.
Further, the ground upon which the judgment is here *320affirmed was not urged or mentioned either in this court or in the trial court.
Accordingly, I must dissent.
Mr. Chief Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Hays concur in this dissenting opinion.