Court Opinion

ID: 9847505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:01:02.505054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:18.512679
License: Public Domain

ARNOLD, Justice
(dissenting).
This is an action by plaintiff Big Four Petroleum Company, part owner of a certain leasehold estate in Lincoln County and the designated operator of the lease, against defendant Harry E. Turner, owner of a %2nds interest in said leasehold for his pro-rata share of the expenses incurred by plaintiff in drilling, equipping, and producing an oil well on said leasehold estate under an alleged oral agreement of defendant to so participate in such expenses and seeking subjection of defendant’s interest in the production therefrom to the payment of such pro-rata share.
Summons was issued directed to the sheriff of Pontotoc County, the residence of the sole defendant in the action. This summons was not dated, though apparently it was issued on the same date the praecipe was filed, on August 28th, and bore return date of September 2nd and answer date of September 24th. This summons was personally served on defendant on August 29th, which was before the return date designated therein. The summons did not give the sheriff, as provided by statute for summons to a foreign county, ten days to make service and return of summons but did give more than 20 days in which to answer from the return date of the summons. This fact does not affect the validity of the summons because the 10-day statute is made for the convenience of the officer; Continental Insurance Co. v. Norman, 71 Okl. 146, 176 P. 211. Nor does the fact that the summons was not dated invalidate it; Stephens v. Ellison, 178 Okl. 390, 391, 63 P.2d 80.
On September 25th, one day after the answer day designated in the summons, defendant filed a “motion to quash” asking that the service be vacated on the usual grounds that the summons was not “issued, served or returned according to law.” This motion was never passed on. Thereafter, and on the next day, September 26th, the court entered default judgment against de*528fendant in which judgment the personal service on defendant was approved. On October 23rd defendant filed another motion asking that the judgment be vacated because (1) the praecipe for summons was not signed; (2) the summons was not dated and did not comply with the statutory requirement that summons to a foreign county shall not be returnable less than 10 days from its date; (3) that defendant filed a motion to quash within 30 days from the date the praecipe for summons was filed on August 28th; (4) that defendant was a non-resident and the sole defendant and that venue of the person could not be and was not obtained by the issuance and service of said summons; (5) that no proper summons was issued or return thereof made.
The third ground mentioned in this motion to vacate judgment, to wit: that defendant filed a motion to quash within 30 days from the date praecipe for summons was filed on August 28th, amounts to an allegation that there was irregularity in obtaining the judgment because, as contended by defendant on the hearing on the motion, he had on file a pleading which had not been ruled on at the time the' judgment was entered and because the default judgment was entered in violation of the rules of the court. Irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order is the third ground set forth in 12 O.S.19S1 § 1031, stating when a district court has power to vacate or modify its judgments. This allegation also invokes ground 7 of said section of the Statutes providing that the district court has power to vacate a judgment for unavoidable casualty or misfortune preventing the party from prosecuting or defending. Neither irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order or unavoidable casualty or misfortune is a jurisdictional ground.
In George O. Richardson Machinery Co. v. Scott, 276 U.S. 128, 48 S.C. 264, 266, 72 L.Ed. 497, a defendant filed a motion to vacate judgment based upon jurisdictional grounds and also alleging that the judgment had been procured by fraud and alleging unavoidable casualty or misfortune. Our court held that by alleging the non-jurisdictional grounds of fraudulent conduct and unavoidable casualty defendant had ended its general appearance. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States that court said:
“Since the founding of the state, it has been the settled law of Oklahoma that, where a person against whom a judgment is rendered files a petition to vacate the judgment upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the defendant, and the petition is based also on non-jurisdictional grounds, such as those mentioned in subparagraphs fourth and seventh of section 810 (now 12 O.S. 1951 § 1031, sub-paragraphs 4 and 7) the filing of the petition operates as a voluntary general appearance, with the same effect as if such appearance had been made at the trial.”
and it affirmed our court.
One who files a motion to vacate a judgment based on non-jurisdictional as well as jurisdictional grounds thereby enters his general appearance, waives his statutory right or privilege to have the case tried in the county of his residence and submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. Cargo, 163 Okl. 122, 21 P.2d 1; Jameson v. Harvel, 139 Okl. 39, 280 P. 1080; Knebel v. Rennie, 87 Okl. 136, 209 P. 414; Board of Trustees of Full Gospel Temple v. City of Oklahoma City ex rel. Rauch, 196 Okl. 491, 166 P.2d 91; Young v. Campbell, 160 Okl. 265, 16 P.2d 65; Summers v. Williams, 206 Okl. 164, 242 P.2d 139.
In the case at bar defendant asked for affirmative relief before the question of venue — jurisdiction of the person — was raised. As shown above defendant was not entitled to the relief which he sought. The non-jurisdictional questions raised by this motion to quash or set aside the service on formal grounds was never passed on and judgment was entered as though no pleading had been filed. Thereafter the motion to set aside service on formal grounds, to wit, *529“that the summons was not issued, served or returned according to law”, was re-iterated and added thereto was a motion to vacate judgment for reason that venue did not obtain. Such a motion under the foregoing decisions is asking for affirmative relief before the issue of venue is raised by a proper pleading. The motion raising the non-jurisdictional question of lack of venue came too late. As was held in Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. Cargo, and Summers v. Williams, supra, an objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the person because of lack of venue must be raised at the first opportunity in the first pleading filed, otherwise the objections on the ground of venue of the person are waived and a general appearance is entered.
This is very different from a motion to vacate a judgment, being the first pleading filed, based on the lack of jurisdiction of the person as was the case of Jones v. Norris, 176 Okl. 434, 55 P.2d 984, cited by the majority opinion. In that case a default judgment had been taken against one I. E. Jones in a mortgage foreclosure action; thereafter Jones filed motion to vacate the judgment on the sole ground that no service of summons had ever been had on her; that the court therefore had no jurisdiction of her person, and that as to her the judgment was void. The opinion holds that the basis of her motion is solely on jurisdictional grounds and that by filing the same she did not enter her general appearance. The objection to jurisdiction of her person was raised in the first pleading filed and the case is not in point here. The case of Harlow Pub. Co. v. Pennel & Harrison, 179 Okl. 360, 65 P.2d 1206; cited by the majority opinion, is not in point because the action in that case was brought against a domestic corporation under a statute providing that the venue of an action against a domestic corporation is in the county in which the cause of action or any part thereof arose and as the cause of action arose in the county where the suit was brought venue was properly in that county.
No case cited by the majority opinion is authority for the principles laid down therein. The case of Summers v. Williams is authority for the views herein expressed. In the case at bar there was first a motion to quash the service because not “issued, served and returned according to law” (which as indicated above is not sustainable) and while this request was pending another motion was filed which first set forth the foregoing ground and then set forth the ground of venue over the person (which if filed first and standing alone might have been good), and also set forth the ground of irregularity in obtaining the judgment and unavoidable casualty preventing the party from defending, both of which are clearly non-jurisdictional grounds.
The defendant here by his pleadings had asked for affirmative relief two times (as to vacation of service for formal reasons and for vacation of judgment on non-jurisdictional grounds) and thereby entered his general appearance.