874 HARVARD LAW REVIEW brought, the jurisdiction over the defendant continues throughout all stages of the action, although the defendant may in the mean- time have left the state, acquired a domicile or citizenship else- where, or attempted to withdraw his consent.^^ The most usual method of acquiring jurisdiction is by personal service of process upon the defendant. Such service is valid only when the defendant, whether a resident or nonresident, is within the state when served. While he is within the state, no matter for how brief a time, the state has control over him, and if during that time he is duly served with process, the court acquires juris- diction over him,^^ unless indeed for some reason he was exempt or privileged from service.^^ Again, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be acquired by his consent. This consent may be given either before or after action has been brought. Jurisdiction is conferred when the defendant enters a general appearance in an action, that is, an appearance for some purpose other than that of raising the objec- tion of lack of jurisdiction over him.^° A stipulation waiving service has the same effect.^^ The defendant may, before suit is " Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. (U. S.) 195 (i86o); Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U. S. 346 (1913); Fitzsimmons v. Johnson, 90 Term. 416, 17 S. W. 100 (1891). "This is one of the decencies of civilization that no one would dispute." Michigan Trust Co. V. Ferry, supra, per Holmes, J. As to the extent of this principle, see New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 U. S. 518 (1916). " Smith V. Gibson, 83 Ala. 284, 3 So. 321 (1887); Lee v. Baird, 139 Ala. 526, 36 So. 720 (1903); Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa, 116 (1872); Alley v. Caspari, 80 Me. 234, 14 Atl. 12 (1888); Peabody v. Hamilton, 106 Mass. 217 (1870); Thompson v. Cowell, 148 Mass. 552, 20 N. E. 170 (1889). " As in the case of persons inveigled into the statte, and nonrfesident witnesses and, - in some jurisdictions, nonresident parties to judicial proceedings. Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U. S. 128 (1916); Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568 (1882). As to privilege from service of process, see, further, cases cited in Scott, Cas. Crv. Proc. 23.
- " Boyle V. Sacker, 39 Ch. D. 249 (C. A. 1888); Henderson v. Carbondale, etc. Co.,
140 U. S. 25 (1891); Western Loan Co. v. Butte, etc. Co., 210 U. S. 368 (1908); St. Louis Car Co. v. Stillwater, etc. Co., 53 Minn. 129, 54 N. W. 1064 (1893). An appli- cation for an extension of time to answer is not necessarily a general appearance. Meisukas v. Greenough, etc. Co., 244 U. S. 54 (191 7); Lowrie v. Castle, 198 Mass. 82, 83 N. E. 1118 (1908). A petition for removal to a federal court is not a general ap- pearance. Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518 (1895); Wabash Western Ry. v. Brow, 164 U. S. 271 (1896); Mechanical Apphance Co. v. Castleman, 215 U. S. 437 (1910). A state statute providing that an appearance for any purpose confers juris- diction over the defendant is constitutional. York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15 (1890). Cf. Harris v. Taylor, [1915] 2 K. B. 580.
- ^ Allured v. Voller, 107 Mich. 476, 65 N. W. 285 (1895); Jones v. Merrill, 113 Mich.
433. 71 N.W. 838(1897).
