SOUTHERN SAW MILL CO. V. EHRMAN AND COMPANY. 47
From the record it appears that John Ehrman-limiting such appearance for the sole purpose of pleading to the jurisdiction of the court-appeared for himself, the copartnership and his copartners and defendants, and recited "The residence of the appellees is in a foreign jurisdiction" *** "That the action, in that the transaction, or any part of it, did not occur within the jurisdiction of the court.". This plea was concluded with prayer for the dismissal of the action with 'proper costs, etc.
The trial court sustained said plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the action. Exception to such order was saved by appellant and appeal prayed and perfected to the Supreme Court of the Canal Zone, and the cause is before this court for review on the action of the trial court in dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction.
The Code of Civil Procedure of the Canal Zone; Section 393, provides:
* And all actions not herein otherwise provided for may be brought in any circuit where the defendant or necessary party defendant may reside or be found, or in any circuit where the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff, except, in cases where other special provision is made by the Code. * *
This is certainly applicable in the cas-e at bar. The question of jurisdiction, in actions, of this nature, must turn on the fact of proper service. When the defendants were found, of their own volition, within the legal boundaries of the First Judicial Circuit and were served with process, the court, obtained jurisdiction under the Code-especially in so far as the defendants served.
No showing is made, neither is the defense offered, that defendants were the victims of intrigue or coercion, when service was obtained, and as they voluntarily brought themselves within the jurisdiction of the court, they stand the same, with equal rights but certainly no more, as those who have their legal domicile in the Canal Zone.
Existing under an administrative form of government, with executive orders recognized as laws, and with no statute to determine "legal residence" or "citizenship," the Code of the Canal Zone, with much wisdom, recites that The defendant who may be found, within the circuit may be served in all actions not otherwise provided for," etc.
The trial court erred in dismissing the action. The plea to the