It is not a general appearance where the question of jurisdiction of the person is rais ed by motion to quash for want of jurisdic tion ; McGillin v. Clain, 52 Fed. 657; or petition to quash the writ; Turner v. Larkin, 12 Pa. Sup. Ct. 284. In general, however, when that objection is raised, the appear ances should be specially restricted ; Nich oles v. People, 165 Ill. 502, 46 N. E. 237; Reed v. Chilson, 142 N. Y. 152, 36 N. E. 884; if by motion or otherwise he seeks to bring into action the powers of the court, he will be deemed to have appeared generally; New love v. Woodward, 9 Neb. 502, 4 N. W. 237. If a special appearance is entered to contest jurisdiction, it becomes general if a defense is made to the merits; Sanderson v. Bishop, 171 Fed. 769.
A special appearance to raise the question of judicial action does not amount to a gen eral appearance ; Commercial Mut. Accident Co. v. Davis, 213 U. S. 245, 29 Sup. Ct. 445, 53 L. Ed. 782. A special appearance entered to contest the jurisdiction will not operate to waive objection to illegal or insufficient service ; Lathrop-Shea & Henwood Co. v. Const. Co., 150 Fed. 666 (citing many Su preme Court cases where such appearance is recognized); Remington v. Ry. Co., 198 U. S. 95, 25 Sup. Ct. 577, 49 L. Ed. 959 ; Powers v. Ry. Co., 169 U. S. 92, 18 Sup. Ct. 264, 42 L Ed. 673; Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U. S. 89, 25 Sup. Ct. 208, 49 L. Ed. 398; and the effect of such appearance is not enlarged by dis cussion of the merits in connection with the plea ; Citizens' Savings & Trust Co. v. R. Co., 205 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 425, 51 L. Ed. 703 ; nor by the removal of the cause; Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, 39 L. Ed. 517 ; even if the petition for re moval does not specify or restrict the pur pose of the appearance and is not accom: panted by a plea in abatement ; National Ac cident Society v. Spiro, 164 U. S. 281, 17 Sup. Ct. 996, 41 L. Ed. 435. Filing a petition to remove is not a general appearance ; Spreeu v. Delsignore, 94 Fed. 71.
Where defendant files a formal appearance and simultaneously an exception to the ju risdiction, the two papers should be consid ered together and cannot be regarded as con sent to the jurisdiction where consent is nec essary; Wood v. Lumber Co., 226 U. S. 384, 33 Sup. Ct. 125, 57 L. Ed.
It does not amount to a general appear ance that a defendant not served is examined as a witness ; Nixon v. Downey, 42 Ia. 78 ; Schroeder v. Lahrman, 26 Minn. 87, 1 N. W. 801; or is present when depositions are tak en ; Bentz v. Eubanks, 32 Kan. 321, 4 Pac.
269; Anderson v. Anderson, 55 Mo. App. 268; Scott v. Hull, 14 Ind. 136 ; or in the court room during the trial ; Tiffany v. Gilbert, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 320 ; Newlove v. Woodward, 9 Neb. 502, 4 N. W. 237 ; Crary v. Barber, 1 Colo. 172.
Actual or formal appearance is now un necessary; Gardiner v. McDowell's Adm'r, Wright (Ohio) 762 ; Byrne v. Jeffries, 38 Miss. 533 ; and a formal entry of one is un known in Louisiana ; Stoker v. Leavenworth, 7 La. 390. It need not be by any formal act or words in court; Harrison v. Morton, 87 Md. 671, 40 Atl. 897; Salina Nat. Bank v. Prescott, 60 Kan. 490, 57 Pac. 121; Rhoades v. Delaney, 50 Ind. 468. It is generally done by entry of the attorney's name on the dock et opposite the party's name ; Romaine v. Ins. Co., 28 Fed. 625 (where the practice is examined at large); Scott v. Israel, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 145 (where the entry of the attorney's name on the docket opposite the names of two defendants, is good as to both, though one was not served); or the initials merely ; Kennedy v. Fairman, 2 N. C. 405 ; or by en dorsement on the declaration; Byrne, Vance & Co. v. Jeffries, 38 Miss. 533 ; or on the writ waiving service; Harrison v. Morton, 87 Md. 671, 40 Atl. 897 ; or any action in court in the case except to object to the jurisdiction ; Audretsch v. Hurst, 126 Mich. 301, 85 N. W. 746; Warren v. Cook, 116 Ill. 199, 5 N. E. 538; Tippack v. Briant, 63 Mo. 580 ; People v. Cowan, 146 N. Y. 848, 41 N. E. 26, and see a variety of cases collected in 3 (lye. 504, n. 28.
By whom to be made.—In civil cases it may in general be made either by the party or his attorney ; and in those cases where It is said that the party must appear in per son, it is sufficient if It is so entered on the record ; although, in fact, the appearance is by attorney ; Mockey v. Grey, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 192 ; Arnold v. Sandford, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 417. The unauthorized appearance of an attorney will not give the court juris diction; Great West Min. Co. v. Min. Co., 12 Colo. 46, 20 Pac. 771, 13 Am. St. Rep. 204 ; McNamara v. Carr, 84 Me. 299, 24 Atl. 856.
An appearance by attorney is, in strict ness, improper where a party wishes to plead to the jurisdiction of the court, be cause the appointment of an attorney of the court admits its jurisdiction; 1 Chit. Pl. 398 ; 2 Wms. Saund. 209 b; and is insufficient in those cases where the party has not suffi cient capacity to appoint an attorney. Thus an idiot can appear only in person, and as a plaintiff he may sue in person or by his next friend.