Court Opinion

ID: 9581981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:21:03.619581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:22.307086
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice
(concurring):
I concur in the result of the majority; however, I would reverse on a different theory.
I believe Murrow Brothers waived its right to object to. jurisdiction when it requested and received an extension of time to answer. The following letter was written by counsel for Murrow to Jenkinson:
“We have been contacted by an attorney in Georgia concerning a Complaint you mailed to Murrow Bros. Seed Company on behalf of Delmar Jenkinson. I am currently waiting to be briefed on the facts, of the case as far as Murrow Bros, is concerned and called your office on Tuesday to request an extension.
“Nelson Parker authorized an extension in which to answer or otherwise plead and I told him that I would send you a letter to confirm this. Therefore, if you would be so kind as to grant us this extension on the bottom of this letter we will be in touch with you in the near future.” (Tr. p. 11). -
The general rule is that “an agreement or stipulation extending time to plead constitutes a general appearance.” 5 Am. Jur. (2d), Appearance, § 25, p. 499. The rationale *154behind this rule is that a request for an extension of time to plead impliedly indicates an intent to submit to jurisdiction.
It is unnecessary that the act acknowledging jurisdiction be formal in nature. As stated in Lightsey, Code Pleading, p. 32:
“[A] voluntary appearance waiving a jurisdictional defect may be based on far less than the formal filing of an answer or submission to the Court. For example, requests for extensions of time . . . may involve the sanctions of Section 10-406.1.”
In order to establish a waiver of the right to contest jurisdiction, it is only necessary that a party, by its conduct, evince an intent to proceed to the merits of the case. Such intent may be gleaned by the inconsistency arising when a party initially acknowledges jurisdiction and subsequently attempts to deny it. In Connell v. Connell, 249 S. C. 162, 166, 153 S. E. (2d) 396, 398 (1967), the Court stated:
“[I]f a defendant, by his appearance, insists only on objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person, and confines his appearance for that purpose only, then he has made a special appearance, but if he raises any other question or asks any relief which can only be granted on the hypothesis that the court has jurisdiction of his person, then he has made a general appearance.” (Emphasis supplied).
See also South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Isthmian S. S. Co., 210 S. C. 408, 43 S. E. (2d) 132 (1947).
The fact that Murrow Brothers took advantage of the extension granted prior to contesting jurisdiction amplifies the inconsistency created by its conduct, and distinguishes this case from Thompson v. Queen City Coach Co., Inc., 169 S. C. 231, 168 S. E. 693 (1933). There, although an extension of time was requested, the defendant did not use the extra time, but timely filed a notice of special appearance.
*155I would hold that Murrow Brothers waived its right to assert a lack of jurisdiction and would not reach the issue on which the majority bases its opinion.