Summary
In Vance v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.App. 327 [191 P. 945], where the facts were similar to those here, the court said: "By his general appearance in the justice's and superior court petitioner waived his right to raise the question of jurisdiction," citing Olcese v. Justice's Court, 156 Cal. 82 [ 103 P. 317], and American Law Book Co. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. 327 [ 128 P. 921]. (See, also, Roberts v. Police Court, 185 Cal. 65 [ 195 P. 1053].)
Summary of this case from Bogmuda v. YoungOpinion
Civ. No. 3384.
June 26, 1920.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari to review an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Leslie R. Hewitt, Judge. Denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Archie D. Mitchell for Petitioner.
The petition is denied. [1] By his general appearance in the justice's and superior court petitioner waived his right to raise the question of jurisdiction. Holbrook v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 589, [39 P. 936], does not aid him. That case was decided when section 890, subdivision 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provided that the objection that the action was brought in the wrong county might be made at the trial. In 1905 [Stats. 1905, p. 44], the section was amended, and subdivision 4 thereof now merely provides that the action may be dismissed "when the action is brought in the wrong county, township or city." Since the amendment, the subject of dismissal of such actions has been considered by the supreme court, and it has been uniformly held that objection to the jurisdiction of the person must be made by special appearance for that purpose; otherwise it is waived. ( Olcese v. Justice's Court, 156 Cal. 82, [ 103 P. 317]; American Law Book Co. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. 327, [ 128 P. 921].)