Lapham v. Tarabusi

225 N.W. 483, 247 Mich. 380, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 753
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided June 3, 1929·No. Docket No. 143, Calendar No. 34,288.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

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. *Page 381 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lapham v. Tarabusi, 225 N.W. 483, 247 Mich. 380, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 753 (Mich. 1929).

225 N.W. 483 (Lapham v. Tarabusi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People of Michigan v. Corey Frank Miller
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2014
Deeb v. Berri
325 N.W.2d 493 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1982)
In Re Parker's Estate
255 N.W. 318 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)
Bristol v. Kalamazoo College
268 Mich. 79 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)
Miller v. Sutro Bros. Co.
255 N.W. 282 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)
Wolf v. Cohen
235 N.W. 835 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1931)