Page:Compiled Laws of the State of North Dakota 1913 vol II.pdf/61

== CODE CIVIL PROCEDURE ==

Pleadings in §§ 7438-7440
Appearance and request for trial gives jurisdiction of person of defendant. Riebold v. Hartzell, 23 N.D. 264, 136 N.W. 247.

Defendant who has voluntarily appeared generally is estopped to object to want of jurisdiction over his person. Rogers v. Penobacot Min. Co., 28 S.D. 72, 132 N.W. 792, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1184.

Quasi or conditional jurisdiction over subject matter of action is given by levy of warrant of attachment. Goldstein v. Peter Fox Sons Co., 22 N.D. 636, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 566, 135 N.W. 180.

Waiver of lack of or defects in service of process by special appearance on appeal from justice's court. 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 664.

As to similar provision in Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 416, see ''Sacramento Sav. Bank v. Spencer, 53 Cal. 737; Ghiradelli v. Greene, 56 Cal. 629; Deamond v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. 274; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. 471; Tyrrell v. Baldwin'', 67 Cal. 1, 6 Pac. 867; Merced Co. V. Hicks, 57 Cal. 108, 7 Pac. 179; Anderson v. Goff, 72 Cal. 65, 1 Am. St. Rep. 34, 13 Pac. 73; Weeks v. Garibaldi S. G. M. Co., 73 Cal. 599, 15 Pac. 302; In re Newman. 75 Cal. 213, 7 Am. St. Rep. 146, 16 Pac. 887; Barney v. Vigoureaux, 75 Cal. 376, 17 Pac. 433; White v. Patton, 87 Cal. 151, 25 Pac. 270; Dunlap v. Steer, 92 Cal. 344, 16 L.R.A. 361, 27 Am. St. Rep. 143, 28 Pac. 563; Blumberg v. Birch, 99 Cal. 416, 37 Am. St. Rep. 67, 34 Pac. 102; Herman v. Santee, 103 Cal. 519, 42 Am. St. Rep. 145, 37 Pac. 509; Kahn v. Matthai, 115 Cal. 689, 47 Pac. 698; ''Hibernia S. & L. Soc. v. Matthai'', 116 Cal. 424, 48 Pac. 370; Hibernia S. & L. Soc v. Lewis, 117 Cal. 577, 47 Pac. 602, 49 Pac. 714; Christian v. Superior Court, 122 Cal. 117, 54 Pac. 518; Security L. & T. Co. v. Boston & S. R. F. Co., 126 Cal. 418, 58 Pac. 941, 59 Pac. 296; Thompson v. Alford, 128 Cal. 227, 60 Pac. 686; ''Hibernia S. & L. Soc. v. Cochran, 141 Cal. 653, 75 Pac. 315; Parsons v. Davis, 3 Cal. 421; Pico v. Sunol, 6 Cal. 294; Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal. 685; Whitwell v. Barbier, 7 Cal. 54; Deidesheimer v. Brown, 8 Cal. 340; Kane v. Cook, 8 Cal. 449; Gray v. Hawes, 8 Cal. 562; Ware v. Rovinson, 9 Cal. 107; Alderson v. Bell, 9 Cal. 315; McMillan v. Reynolds 11 Cal. 372; Jordan v. Giblin, 12 Cal. 100; Holmes v. Rogers, 13 Cal. 191; Rowley v. Howard, 23 Cal. 401; Willson v. Cleaveland, 30 Cal. 192; Reynolds v. Page, 35 Cal. 296; Sharp v. Brunnings, 35 Cal. 528; Eitel v. Foote, 39 Cal. 439; Foote v. Richmond, 42 Cal. 439; People v. Bernal, 43 Cal. 385; Dyer v. North, 44 Cal. 157; McCauley v. Fulton, 44 Cal. 355; Drake v. Duvenick'' 45 Cal. 455.

ARTICLE

1. THE COMPLAINT, §§ 7439, 7440.

2. THE DEMURRER, §§ 7441-7447.

3. THE ANSWER, §§ 7448-7451.

4. THE REPLY, §§ 7452-7454.

5. GENERAL RULES OF PLEADING, §§ 7455-7477.

6. MISTAKES IN PLEADINGS AND AMENDMENTS, §§ 7478-7486.

§ 7439. Forms of pleadings abolished. All forms of pleadings heretofore existing are abolished; and hereafter the forms of pleadings in civil actions in courts of record and the rules by which the sufficiency of the pleadings is to be determined are those prescribed by this code.

[R.C. 1905, § 6851; C. Civ. P. 1877, § 109; R.C. 1895, § 5265.]

Applicable to allegation of facts to show creation of trust in favor of plaintiff Swenson v. Swenson, 17 S.D. 558, 97 N.W. 845.

Old forms of pleadings and of issues are abolished along with old actions, and entirely new systems of presenting issues for trial is substituted for old Kenny v. McKenzie, 25 S.D. 485 -L.R.A. (N.S.)-, 127 N.W. 597.

As to similar provision in Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 421, see ''People v. Central Pac. R. Co.'', 83 Cal. 393, 23 Pac. 303; San Francisco Gas Co. v. San Franscisco, 9 Cal. 453; Payne v. Treadwell 16 Cal. 220.

'''§ 7440. Complaint. What to contain.''' The first pleading on the part of the plaintiff is the complaint. The complaint shall contain: