
    LAPHAM v. TARABUSI.
    1. Appearance — Stipulation por Continuance Amounts to General Appearance — Jurisdiction.
    Stipulation in writing by attorneys for continuance of summary proceedings before circuit eourt commissioner amounted to general appearance, and commissioner acquired jurisdiction.
    2. Same — General Appeal Amounts to General, Appearance— Jurisdiction.
    General appeal from judgment in summary proceedings before circuit court commissioner to circuit eourt amounted to general appearance, and conferred jurisdiction on said court.
    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 S McGee, for plaintiffs.
    
      Wm. H. Wilmot, for defendants.
   Potter, J.

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.  