CANAVAGGIO V. HABIB.27

(2) That even so, the question of jurisdiction was waived by the defendant in filing answer and going to trial.
As to the first question we must here repeat what was said by this court in the case of Blue vs. Panama Timber Company as; follows:
The question of jurisdiction was presented at the trial court upon these disputed facts and the trial court overruled the plea of lack of jurisdiction and found the essential jurisdictional facts in favor of the plaintiff. This finding we are not disposed to disturb* but,- moreover there was
proof tending to show that the defendant had property within the Canal Zone, and the record fails to show any reason for disturbing the finding of the court below upon these jurisdictional questions of fact.
And so, in the present case, the record shows that the defendant, Louis Habib, lived at the Hotel Tivoli for a long period of time while transacting business in the Republic of Panama, also there was evidence tending to show that he had moneys and jewels of the value of about $10,000 in the safe of the Hotel Tivoli and that these jewels he was buying and selling in the course of his business. Under these circumstances we think the court below was quite justified in finding that the defendant, Louis Habib, was domiciled and had a temporary residence within the Canal Zone and also that he and the defendant company had property in the Canal Zone subject to the jurisdiction of the Canal Zone courts.
But furthermore, it can not be doubted that the Canal Zone court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, that is, it had jurisdiction of the general class of cases to which this particular case belongs. The jurisdictional question presented was therefore as to the person of the defendant and not as to the subject matter, and it has been repeatedly held that while the question of jurisdiction of the subject matter is never waived by appearance and that the same can be raised at any time, even for the first time in the highest court of review, that nevertheless the question of jurisdiction of the person of a defendant can be and is waived by appearance, notwithstanding an exception may be reserved to the action of the court in failing to dismiss for want of perSional juri-sdiction. This is so universally recognized as a sound principle of law that it is hardly necessary to cite authorities. However, those cited by the- plaintiffs-appellees in their brief, viz:
Union Pacific Railway Company vs De Busk, 3 L. R. A., 350.
Brand vs. Brand, 63 L. R. A., 205.
Corbett vs. Casualty Association of America, 16 L. R. A., 117. appear to sustain the proposition herein stated.

2-77