Dauphin v. Landrigan
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentEschweiler, J.
(dissenting). .It being conceded that there was a valid service of the summons upon the defendant personally in Wisconsin, the court then and there acquired jurisdiction of the defendant, and whether the defendant thereafter did or did not cause to be served a notice of retainer, demand a copy of the complaint, or take any other steps in the action is entirely immaterial. Plaintiff’s extension of time as indorsed on the summons could have no effect on the question of whether the court had jurisdiction; that was something the plaintiff could not give nor take away. *638The plaintiff may, it is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. MessmoreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- Corbett v. Physicians' Casualty Ass'n of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Bestor v. Inter-County FairWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Driscoll v. TillmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
- State ex rel. Engle v. HilgendorfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.