Nelson v. McCormick

3 Citing cases

  1. Maasdam v. Weingrad

    No. 356310 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 14, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, she waived any challenge to the trial court's personal jurisdiction over her and to the adequacy of service of process. See Nelson v McCormick, 334 Mich. 387, 389-390; 54 N.W.2d 694 (1952).

  2. Moffett v. Jemmott

    No. 330900 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2017)

    "The entering of a general appearance by the principal defendant gives the court jurisdiction in personam." Nelson v McCormick, 334 Mich 387, 389; 54 NW2d 694 (1952). Two requirements must be met to render an act adequate to support the inference that it constitutes a general appearance: (1) knowledge of the pending proceedings and (2) an intent to appear.

  3. Wright v. Estate of Treichel

    36 Mich. App. 33 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 9 times
    In Wright, the lack of an administrator prevented the court from obtaining jurisdiction over the estate; therefore, the period of limitation was held to be tolled during this period.

    See generally 6 CJS, Appearances, ยง 25, p 68. See Austin v. Burroughs (1886), 62 Mich. 181; Nelson v. McCormick (1952), 334 Mich. 387. In the instant case there could be no authority, either expressed or implied, enabling Johnson to enter an appearance for the estate because the administrator, from whom such authority must come, had expired.