Milwaukee Elevator Co. v. Feuchtwanger
Milwaukee Elevator Company v. Feuchtwanger, imp.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Wikslow, C. J.
The defendant is a nonresident of the’ state, and the summons herein was served upon him while he was temporarily in the state, in actual and necessary attendance upon court in an action to which he was a party, and hence exempt from the service of process. Upon motion the service was set aside and an order made dismissing the action with motion costs. From this order the plaintiff appeals on the' ground that, although the defendant stated that he appeared specially, his motion was not merely to vacate the service, but to dismiss the action with costs.
It is undoubtedly true that in some jurisdictions such a motion constitutes a general appearance, but this court, in Kingsley v. G. N. R. Co. 91 Wis. 380 , 64 N. W. 1036 , held that the identical motion made here did not constitute a general appearance. Following that case, the order appealed from must be affirmed.
By the Court. — It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.