The judgment is therefore reversed, with costs of both courts to defendant, and no new trial granted. The record submitted contains no index. no costs will be allowed for printing record. The other Justices concurred. In such case, 93 215 f126 416 LUCIUS D. WATKINS V. CHARLES H. PLUMMER. Bills and notes-Action-Venue-Transfer for collection-Parties— Jurisdiction. 1. An agent to whom a negotiable note has been transferred for collection may bring suit thereon in his own name;' citing Brigham v. Gurney, 1 Mich. 349; Lobdell v. Bank, 33 Id. 408; Boyd v. Corbitt, 37 Id. 52. 2. Where the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of a suit, it is a general rule that a plea to the merits waives any irregularity in obtaining jurisdiction of the person; citing Railroad Co. v. Gray, 38 Mich. 461; Gott v. Brigham, 41 Id. 227; Thompson v. Benefit Ass'n, 52 Id. 522. 3. An exception to this rule exists when the method of obtaining jurisdiction constitutes a fraud upon the court as well as upon the party.2 4. Where a negotiable note is transferred to an agent for collection in order that suit may be brought against an indorser in a county in which neither the owner of the note nor the indorser resides, and the indorser, upon being served with process, pleads to the merits, without being misled as to the real ownership of the note, and with knowledge that a suit thereon need not necessarily be brought in the name of the real owner, and of the legal right of the plaintiff to sue in his own name, the defendant cannot question the jurisdiction of the court upon the ground that the suit was brought in fraud of his rights. 'See Wintermute v. Torrent, 83 Mich. 555. See Copas v. Provision Co., 73 Mich. 541. 93 215 s53NW 165 e133 2698 George W. Weadock (Thomas A. Wilson, of counsel), for appellant. A. F. Freeman (A. E. Hewett, of counsel), for plaintiff. MORSE, C. J. The defendant is sued as indorser upon a negotiable promissory note. The plaintiff lives in Jackson county, and brought the action in the circuit court of that county, and recovered a judgment. The defendant lives in Saginaw county, but has business interests in Jackson county which call him there at times. It was shown at the trial that the note in suit was discounted at the People's Bank in Manchester, Washtenaw county, by the defendant, and that the bank was, at the time of the institution of the suit, and at the time of the trial, the owner of the note, but had transferred the same for collection to plaintiff, in order that suit could be planted in Jackson county. The plaintiff is a stockholder and director in the bank, and resides in the township of Norvell, Jackson county, which adjoins the township in Washtenaw county in which the bank is located. The plea was the general issue, with notice of special defense. The defendant established the fact of the ownership of the note and the purpose of its transfer, and moved for a verdict upon the ground that the suit was brought in fraud of defendant's rights, the note being transferred for the purpose of suing him away from his home. It does not appear, however, that the defendant was misled as to the real ownership of the note, or submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court under any misap- An exception to this rule exists when the method of obtaining jurisdiction constitutes a fraud upon the court as well as upon the party, but such is not the case here. The other points suggested are without merit, and the judgment should stand affirmed, with costs. The other Justices concurred. FREZINA GANSON V. ALVIN BALDWIN. Landlord and tenant-Yearly holding-Notice to quit-Summary proceedings-Condition of occupancy. 1. A summary proceeding to recover the possession of land held by a tenant from year to year was commenced before the expiration 93 217 105 314 93 217 112 225 of one year from the service of notice to quit. The complainant recovered judgment, which the defendant removed to the Supreme Court, where he for the first time raised the objection that the notice was insufficient. It appeared, however, that the statutory year had then elapsed, and that the complainant was entitled to the premises, and the judgment is affirmed. 2. Complainant, in consideration of defendant's verbal agreement for her support, put him in possession of her land, and, on his failure to perform his agreement, instituted summary proceedings to eject him; and, while the testimony fails to show that there was an express agreement that defendant should forfeit his possession in case of a failure to furnish the agreed support, the Court hold that such must have been the understanding of the parties, and a judgment in favor of the complainant for the possession of the premises is affirmed. Avery, Jenks & Avery (Joseph Walsh, of counsel), for appellant. James L. Coe, for complainant. MORSE, C. J. The action in this case was commenced before a circuit court commissioner for the recovery of the possession of the S. of the S. of the N. W. of section 6, township 6 N., of range 17 E., county of St. Clair. The cause was appealed to the circuit court, where the complainant had verdict and judgment. The husband of the complainant, one Samuel Ganson, owned the N. of the S. of said N. W. 4 of said section 6, and on the 30th day of July, 1886, he entered into the following agreement with the defendant: "This memorandum of agreement, made and concluded between Samuel Ganson of the first part and Alvin Baldwin of the second part, witnesseth: "That whereas, the said party of the first part, by reason of the uncertainties of life, and his condition and age, deems it necessary to place himself and wife under the protection and care of some kindly disposed person during the remaining portion of the natural life of himself and wife, Frezina. "Now, therefore, it is agreed between the parties of the first and second part here to that the party of the first part, for and in consideration that the party of the second part, during the natural life-time of the party of the first part, keep him and his wife, Frezina, in a comfortable condition of living, suitable to their situation in life, furnishing him all necessaries, and suitable board, food, clothing, medicines, and medical attendance, care, attention, and nursing in sickness or helplessness, washing, ironing, and mending, conveys to said second party by warranty deed the north half of the south half of the north-west quarter of section 6, township 6 north, of range 17 east, containing 40 acres of land; and the said party of the second part, for himself and his heirs, executors, or administrators, in view of the consideration before stated, hereby agrees to in all things comply with the recitals and requirements of the party of the first part herein before stated. "In case the said second party fails to comply, either in whole or in part, to fulfill his agreement, then the deed of said premises to be void and of no effect, and the party of the first part may at once re-enter and repossess himself of said premises without notice to quit; and the party of the second part, for himself, agrees fully to comply with the requirements herein contained and by him to be performed, or will reconvey said premises. "And it is further agreed by the parties hereto that, in case the wife of the party of the first part should outlive him, the second party is only bound to a strict compliance of this agreement as to her support and maintenance as long as she remains on the premises now occupied by her, to wit, the south half of the south half of the north-west quarter of section 6, township 6 north, of range. 17 east. "And it is further agreed by the parties hereto that the party of the second part is to have the use of the lastdescribed premises, occupied by the wife of the party of |