[1] Jurisdiction of the person is obtained by the legal service of a valid process issued out of a court of competent jurisdiction in a case or proceeding properly pending, or by a party voluntarily appearing, or by his seeking, taking or agreeing to some act or step in the proceeding or action to his benefit, or to the detriment of the other party, other than by one contesting the jurisdiction over his person only. (Sec. 1014, Code Civ. Proc; Chaplin v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 367 [253 Pac. 954]; Grinbaum v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. 528 [221 Pac. 635].)...
In the case of Olcese v. Justice's Court, 156 Cal. 82 [103 Pac. 317, 318], Mr. Justice Henshaw has clearly stated the law as follows: "Pleas based upon lack of jurisdiction of the person are in their nature pleas in abatement and find no especial favor in the law. They amount to no more that the declaration of the defendant that he has had actual notice, is actually in court in a proper action, but, for informality in the service of process, is not legally before the court. It is a purely dilatory plea, and when a defendant is seeking to avail himself of it, he must, for very obvious reasons, stand upon his naked legal right and seek nothing further from the court than the enforcement of that right. He will not be heard to ask of the court anything further than an adjudication upon his plea, and if he does ask anything further, then, by the logic of the fact, he must necessarily have waived the irregularity of his summons before the court. Here is one reason for the well-settled rule that if a defendant wishes to insist upon the objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person, he must specially appear for that purpose only, and must keep out for all purposes except to make that objection. ... So it is well-settled that if a defendant, under such circumstances, raises any other question, or asks for any relief which can only be granted under the hypothesis that the court has jurisdiction of his person, his appearance is general, though termed special, and he thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the court as completely as if he had been regularly served with summons."
(emphasis added) Gulick v. Justice's Court (1929), 101 Cal.App. 619, 622-624; 281 Pac. 1031.
|