
    KAMINSKI v. STEINHEBEL.
    Vendor and Purchaser — Deficiency—Summons.
    Order for deficiency in chancery foreclosure of land contract is affirmed, although deficiency was not asked for in the summons, where personal decree was sought by notice in the summons, deficiency judgment was asked in bill of complaint and defendant answered.1
    Appeal from Wayne; Jayne (Ira W.), J.
    Submitted October 25, 1933.
    (Docket No. 99, Calendar No. 37,311.)
    Decided December 5, 1933.
    Bill by John Kaminski and another against Jnlia Steinhebel, assignee, to foreclose a land contract and for a deficiency decree. From decretal order for deficiency, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank Selwa, for plaintiffs.
    
      Arthur A. Koscinski and Robert J. Wojcinski, for defendant.
   Weadock, J.

In a chancery foreclosure of a land contract a personal decree against defendant Julia Steinhebel was sought by notice in the summons and a deficiency judgment, if any, was asked in the bill of complaint. Defendant answered by her attorney,, who did not appear on the hearing. A decree was granted plaintiff, fixing the amount due at $5,513.66, ordering sale which was made by circuit court commissioner, whose report of same was confirmed.

A petition was filed and granted for the sum of $2,681.08, by a decretal order, filed December 24, 1932, and defendant appealed because a deficiency was not asked for in the summons.

The decree and decretal order appealed from is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred.  