Opinion by

Defendant in error Wood & Company filed its action in the .district court of Pontotoc county against one J. E. Shannon, a resident of the state of Washington, and garnished certain money in the- hands of the First National Bank of Ada, Okla., whereupon the Yakima Valley Bank of Yakima, Wash., filed its inter-plea, by leave of the court, claming ownership of said sum so garnished by virtue of the transfer by endorsement of a certain draft attached to a bill of lading drawn on J. M. Standfield of Ada, Okla.

For convenience the parties will be designated as they appeared below.

Upon the filing of the petition by plaintiff, an affidavit for garnishment was filed, and the money in the First National Bank was garnisheed, summons was issued, and returned as to defendant Shannon “Not found.” Thereafter summons was issued directed to the sheriff of Yakima county, Wash., and the same was returned, showing personal service upon the defendant Shannon.

Defendant. Shannon made default; judgment was rendered against him and the journal entry of judgment showis “the defendant failed to appear, plead, except, demur, or answer,” and after trial had between the garnishee bank and the inter-vener, judgment was rendered by the court directing the First National Bank of Ada to pay, the money in its possession, obtained by payment of the draft by Standfield, to tbe plaintiff. From this judgment, intervener brings this cause here for review.

Intervener presents seven specifications of errors in bis brief, the first, second, and third of which are as follows: Tbe trial court had no jurisdiction over the person of J. E. Shannon; the trial court had no jurisdiction to render judgment in favor of the defendant in error; the trial court could not render a judgment in favor of the defendant in error unless a garnishment summons had been served on the defendant J. E. Shannon.

It is nlot contended by plaintiff that any garnishment summons was served on the defendant Shannon, and the record wholly fails to show the issuance and service of garnishment summons upon the principal defendant. This court has passed upon this identical question. In State National Bank of Shawnee v. Wood & Company, 88 Okla. 292, 212 Pac. 1002, this court held:

“Section, 4824, Rev. Laws of 1910, is mandatory in requiring the summons of garnishment to be served upon! th.e defendant, or his attorney of record, as well a® upon the garnishee; and uthere the plaintiff seeks by *16 garnishment proceedings to reac-h debts owing to a nonresident defendant, the court could not acquire • jurisdiction so as to subject such indebtedness to the claim of the plainltiff without a strict compliance with the statutory provisions. And failure to •serve the summons of garnishment upon the nonresident defendant would be fatal to the jurisdiction of the court.

“The rendering of judgment against a garnishee is dependent upon the court having obtained jurisdiction over the garnishee and the fund in his possession, both for the purpose of condemning and for rendering judgment in rem to that amount against a nonresident defendant. Where the nonresident defendant has not been served with the summons of garnishment, ánd has not appeared before the court, or otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, the court is without authority to render a judgment in rem until it has obtained jurisdiction of the garnishee and the fund in his possession.’’

In State National Bank v. Lowenstein, 52 Okla. 259, 155 Pac. 1127, it is held:

“Section 4824, Rev. Laws 1910, provides: ‘Upon the filing of such affidavit a garnishee summons shall be issued by the clerk and served upon the defendant or his attorney of record, and each of the garnishees, in the manner provided for service of summons, and shall be returned with proof of service in five days: The garnishee summons m¿y be served by the sheriff, or any other person not a party to the action, and shall ‘be substantially in the following form: “-— Court_County. A. B., Plaintiff, v. C. D., Defendant, E. P., Garnishee. The State of Oklahoma to said Garrjishee: Yon are hereby summoned, pursuant to fhe affidavit, filed herein, as garnishee of the defendant, C. D., and required on or before! date of return day. to answer according to law 'whether you are indebted to, or have in your possession or under your control, any property, real or personal, belonging to such defendant, and file your answer with the clerk of this court; and in. case of your failure so to do you will be liable to further proceedings according to law. Of which the said defendant will also take notice.” Held, that this section of the statute is mandatory, and a garnishment summons which does not substantially conform to the provisions of this statute is void, and the service thereof would give no jurisdiction to the court, and held, further, that a failure to serve the garnishee summons upon the principal defendant would-also b,e fatal to the jurisdiction of the court.”

It appears from the record, the inter-vener, Yakima Bank, claimed the garnisheed money, by reason of an assignment of the draft, by Shannon, prior to the filing of the action or the issuance of - the garnishment summons to the Hirst National Bank of Ada. and that intervener forwarded draft to the bank at Ada for collection after crediting Shannon’s acount with the sum represented by the face of the draft.

To establish its claim, intervener served notice on the plaintiff of its intention to take depositions of divers and Sundry persons in Yakima, Wash., and the depositions sho'wl that “J. E. Shannon was duly called by the intervener, and after being first duly sworn deposes and says,” etc. Plaintiff contends that inasmuch as Shannon was sworn and his deposition taken, he made a general appearance in the case, and has waived any irregularities or informalities in the issuance and service of summons and no garnishment summons was necessary.

Plaintiff cites eases in support of its contention, and after a careful examination of all authorities cited, we cannot agree with plaintiff that where a person, who happens to be the principal defendant, is called and sworn for the intervener, and deposes, he thereby enters his general appearance and waives his right to a garnishment summons.

Ziska v. Avey et al., 36 Okla. 405, 122 Pac. 722, cited by defendant in error, simply holds and affirms the well known principal that:

“Where a party against 'whom a judgment is rendered files a motion to vacate the judgment upon the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the defendant-, and said motion is based upon non jurisdictional as well as jurisdictional grounds, held, that thereby said party enters a general appearance as though said app,earan|ce had been made at the trial.”

In Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. v. Hyde, 61 Okla. 250, 161 Pac 172, cited by defendant in error, the court decided that;

“The giving of a bond to discharge' a garnishment' * * * constitutes 'a' general appearance to the action, and converts it from an action in rem to one in personam.”

In Drennan v. Warburton, 33 Okla. 561, 122 Pac. 179, cited by defendant in error, it was held:

“An appearance, in order to be special, must be shown to -be such by a proper designation and entitlement.”

In St. Louis Cordage Mills v. Western Supply Co., 54 Okla. 757, 154 Pac. 646, it was held that where a motion sets forth ‘both jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional grounds for dismissal, the filing of such motion. amounts to a general appearance. .

Martin v. Cole (Ky.) 230 S. W. 535, relied upon by plaintiff, is not. in point, for the reason defendant appeared at the taking of dep *17 ositions; his counsel cross-examined witnesses and when "motion to submit to judg-nient" was ifieci, defendant interposed no objections, and not until a month following did he enter his appearance ana move to quash the summons; and the court held:

"The steps taken by~him (defendant) prior to the filing of his motion to quash the summonts constituted a general appearance to the act~on and the court had jurisdiction of his person."

In Froelich v. Northern Pacific Railway Company (N. D.) 167 N. W. 366, cited in plaintiff's brief, the railway company was duly served w~th summons and notice of taking depositions and appeared at the taking thereof, and participated in the proceedings and was decided upon a point not arising in the instant case.

Reinertsen v. Bennett & Son (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 South. 1027. cited in brief of plaintiff, is not persuasive upon the court, as 11eine~rtsen, plaintiff, Bennett & Son defendants, the. garnishee~ and the numerous inter-veners treated the fund as a trust fund to he distributed among the clainiants, and the case revolved around the question of the proper distribution by the lower ollrt.

After careful research, we have been unable to find any authority supporting the defendant's contention that the fact the principal defendant was called and sworn and his deposition taken would constitute a gen-~ral appearance and feel the better reason is against such a rule.

There having been no garnishment summons served upon the principal defendant, ~hannou, and his being called and sworn as a witness for the intervener, not being such an "appearance" a~ would constitute a general appearance and waiver of the garnishment summons, the court was without jur-jsdiction to render a judgmen't in favor of the plaintiff, Wood & Company, subjecting the money garnished to the satisfaction of the judgment obtained against Shannon, the principal defeuldant, and for the reasons herein stated the judgment of the court below should be reversed for further proceedings in (-onfo~rmity herewith.

qy the Court: It is so ordered.