In Lapham v Tarabusi, 247 Mich. 380; 225 N.W. 483 (1929), the Court held that a stipulation to continue the case was alone adequate to support the finding that a party had appeared.Summary of this case from Deeb v. Berri
Docket No. 143, Calendar No. 34,288.
Submitted April 19, 1929.
Decided June 3, 1929.
Error to Oakland; Covert (Frank L.), J. Submitted April 19, 1929. (Docket No. 143, Calendar No. 34,288.) Decided June 3, 1929.
Summary proceedings by James C. Lapham and another against Louis Tarabusi and others for the foreclosure of a land contract. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Pelton McGee, for plaintiffs.
Wm. H. Wilmot, for defendants.
Plaintiffs brought summary proceedings against defendants. There was judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants bring error claiming want of jurisdiction because of no personal service of summons on defendants. The attorneys for the parties stipulated in writing to continue the case from August 6, 1928, to August 13, 1928. Such stipulation for continuance amounts to a general appearance. 4 C. J. p. 1345; Waldron v. Palmer, 104 Mich. 556. The circuit court commissioner acquired jurisdiction. A general appeal was taken to the circuit court. This amounted to a general appearance (4 C. J. p. 1346), and conferred jurisdiction on the circuit court. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
NORTH, C.J., and FEAD, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, McDONALD, and SHARPE, JJ., concurred.