267 ALA 94 - Ex parte Helveston

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2001

14 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1On Motion for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

¶2Petitioner seems to be uncertain whether he waives his claim that service of process should be quashed if after the ruling denying his motion he makes a general appearance and contests the suit on its merits. For his benefit this Court expresses the opinion that his general appearance and contest on the merits of the claim sued on will not waive his right to review the ruling on his motion to quash the service. This is clearly the import of sections 214 and 242, Title 7, Code. It is not controlling that we are here dealing with a motion to- quash service and not a plea in abatement. The reason of the rule applies to both procedures. Reading sections 214 and 242 together makes that conclusion clear. See Du Pree v. Hart, 242 Ala. 690(4), 8 So.2d 183. With this addition to the opinion, the application for rehearing should be overruled.

¶3Application for rehearing overruled.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, SIMPSON, GOODWYN, MERRILL and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.STAKELY, J., not sitting.