Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas Volume 65

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas Volume 65

By (author) 

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 edition. Excerpt: ...excepted. The court then sustained the motion, dissolved the attachment, and discharged the property, for the reason suggested in the motion. Afterward the defendant appeared specially and moved the court to dismiss the action for the reason that it had no jurisdiction over him. This motion was sustained and the case dismissed. The plaintiff in error complains of this judgment. We are of the opinion that the court below erred in dismissing the action. A defendant in an action may appear specially to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, and such appearance, when made exclusively for that purpose, will not give the court jurisdiction. When the defendant challenged the right of plaintiff in error to amend his affidavit in attachment, he was not presenting a jurisdictional question. It was said in Gorham 11. Tanquerry, 58 Kan. 233, 48 Pac. 916: "The defendants, upon whom there had been no valid service, appeared and attacked the jurisdiction of the court, and at the same time asked that an attachment, which had been levied upon their property, should be discharged, upon the ground that the affidavit of plaintiff, made to procure the attachment, was insuflicient; held, that, having appeared for other purposes and presented other considerations than those of jurisdiction, they made a general appearance and gave the court general jurisdiction over them." In that case the defendant appeared and contested the sufficiency of the attachment affidavit; in this case he appeared and contested the right of plaintiff to amend such affidavit. Neither involved a jurisdictional question; both raised questions other than those of jurisdiction. The appearance of the defendant in this case to contest the right of the plaintiff to amend more

Product details

  • Paperback | 290 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 15mm | 522g
  • English
  • Illustrations, black and white
  • 123696411X
  • 9781236964113