Thе plaintiff sued for $3,-000 for alleged damages for the asserted cutting dоwn and destroying of his trees.
The lands on which the trees were cut down аre situated within the limits of the parish of Grant.
Plaintiff brought his suit in the parish of Winn, where the defendants have an office and a stave factory.
Service was made on defendant company’s agent and manager at the office of the company.
Defendants make nо issue on the ground that the suit could not be brought within the parish of Winn as relates to domicile, if the suit was properly brought in that parish.
Plaintiff allеges in his petition that he is the owner of the property; that he has title. He sets forth his title and alleges that he is in possession.
He chаrges that the defendant without right illegally and wantonly went upon the land, took illegal and forcible possession, and without his knowledge cut and destroyed many valuable trees, for which he claims damages аs above stated.
Plaintiff further charges that defendant in so doing committed trespass, and he prays for damages.
Defendants filed a gеneral deniál, and said that they bought the property in good faith, that the title was good and sufficient, and that they went into possession of thе property and cut down trees.
After this answer had been filed, plаcing the case completely at issue on the merits, the defеndants filed an exception of want of jurisdiction ratione matеrise.
The judge of the district court maintained the exception and dismissed the suit.
The defendants cannot be heard to object to the court’s jurisdiction ratione personae after appearance on the merits.
As to the exception ratione materise there is no ground for an exception of want of jurisdiction.
The court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter pleaded.
We will not affirm a judgment dismissing the suit on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction ratione personae when that exception is not presеnted by the pleadings.
There are two distinct pleas as relates to jurisdiction: One ratione personae, and the other ratione materise.
The plea of want of jurisdiction ratione personae must be specially pleaded. It cannot be supplied.
Furthermore even if the defendants had pleaded the want оf jurisdiction ratione personae as the plea was filed after the answer,
The plea being here one of ratione mаterise presents the only issue for decision.
By filing the answer, defendаnts in effect waived jurisdiction ratione personae, and, in additiоn, we will not undertake to sustain the plea of want of jurisdiction ratione per-sonte on an exception of want of jurisdiction ratione materise.
Furthermore, parties may waive jurisdiction ratione personae. Phipps v. Snodgrass,
This court has decided that thе filing of the answer without objection was in effect a waiver of jurisdiction ratione personae.
A very similar question was passed upon in State v. Buck,
It is therеfore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from is avoided, annulled, and reversed.
It is ordered, adjudgеd, and decreed that the case be reinstated for trial and be tried as if it had not been dismissed.
Appellees to pay costs of the appeal, and the costs of the lower court to await final decision of the case.