Jameson v. Harvel
Citation | 139 Okla. 39,280 P. 1080,1929 OK 393 |
Decision Date | 01 October 1929 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 18436 |
Parties | JAMESON v. HARVEL et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. Appearance--When Appearance General.
Whether an appearance is general or special does not depend upon the form of the pleading, but upon its substance. If a defendant invokes the judgment of the court upon any question, except that of the power of the court to hear and decide the cause, his appearance is general. Haynes, Adm'x, v. City Nat. Bank of Lawton et al., 30 Okla. 614, 121 P. 182.
2. Same--By Urging Nonjurisdictional as Well as Jurisdictional Questions, Defendant Held to Have Entered General Appearance and Waived Defects in Process.
The defendant, by pleading that the facts stated in the petition did not constitute a cause of action within the Jurisdiction of the court, and that no issue could be joined upon the facts attempted to be alleged in the petition, and that the court was wholly without jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and praying that the cause be dismissed for want of jurisdiction entered a general appearance, and thereby waived all defects in the summons and service of the summons. It was error to quash the summons and set aside the service after the defendant had entered a general appearance.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Wyley Jones, Judge.
Action by James W. Jameson against Albert L. Harvel and another. From order dismissing action as to defendant Harvel, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
O. T. Shinn, for plaintiff in error.
G. A. Chappel, for defendants in error.
¶1 Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff commenced this action in the district court of Oklahoma county against the defendants in error, hereinafter referred to as defendants, by filing his petition and causing the summons to issue to Oklahoma county for the defendant Mary E. Jameson and to Kay county for the defendant Albert L. Harvel. Personal service was had upon each of the defendants.
¶2 The petition contained three causes of action separately stated and numbered, the first of which was against both of the defendants, and the second and third of which were against the defendant Albert L. Harvel. The first cause of action was for divorce, and alleged that Albert L. Harvel had been guilty of improper practices with Mary E. Jameson, the details of which are unnecessary to state. The second and third causes of action were for alienation of affection.
¶3 It appears that divorce has been granted plaintiff from the defendant Mary E. Jameson, and that issue is not before this court.
¶4 The defendant Albert L. Harvel filed an instrument denominated, "Special Appearance and Denial of Jurisdiction and Motion to Strike out and Dismiss plaintiff's Second and Third Causes of Action," which reads as follows:
¶5 This instrument, though denominated a special appearance, is in fact a general appearance.
Haynes, Adm'x, v. City Nat. Bank of Lawton et al., 30 Okla. 614, 121 P. 182.
See, also, Edmondston v. Porter, 65 Okla. 18, 162 P. 692, and Webster v. Crump. 117 Okla. 244, 246 P. 423.
¶6 This pleading invoked the judgment of the court. It required the court to determine whether or not it had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. It required the court to determine whether or not there was a misjoinder of causes of action. Those matters could be determined by the court only after an examination of the record.
¶7 The issue in this case is determined by the rule stated in Webster v. Crump, supra, wherein it was said:
¶8 In Bilyeu v. Branson, Adm'r, 86 Okla. 212, 206 P. 898, there was a motion to dismiss the second cause of action upon the ground that the action was improperly joined with an action with reference to real estate and was so joined in order to bring the defendant into a court which had no jurisdiction over him and for the purpose of trying a matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McDonald v. McDonald
......Zobel ,. 151 Cal. 98, 90 P. 191; Gravelin v. Porier , 77 Mont. 260, 250 P. 823; Edmondston v. Porter , 65 Okla. 18,. 162 P. 692; Jameson v. Harvel , 139 Okla. 39, 280 P. 1080; In re Cewaucan River , 89 Ore. 659, 175 P. 421.) The court having jurisdiction of the parties and of the. ......
-
Mills v. Dist. Court of Lincoln Cnty.
......No affirmative relief was asked, as in Jameson v. Harvel, 139 Okla. 39, 280 P. 1080, nor was the sufficiency of the petition attacked as in Webster v. Crump, 117 Okla. 244, 246 P. 423. The cause ......
-
Pine v. Hill Judge
......54, 240 P. 608; Webster v. Crump, 117 Okla. 244, 246 P. 423; Bristow v. Scott, 124 Okla. 89, 254 P. 16; Jameson v. Harvel, 139 Okla. 39, 280 P. 1080; Nolan v. Schaetzel, 145 Okla. 231, 292 P. 353, and many other decisions of this court. Under the rules therein ......
-
Myers v. Carr
......Welch v. Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 116 P. 573; Clarkson v. Washington, 38 Okla. 4, 131 P. 935; Jameson v. Harvel, 139 Okla. 39, 280 P. 1080. ¶21 Aside from this, or in addition thereto, the journal entry wherein judgment was rendered ......