Case ID: nys_26/html/1124-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MAYHAM, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SMITH et al., Respondents, v. ROBLEE et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
    December 6, 1893.)
    Action by Charles Smith and Patrick Hickey against Hamilton A. Roblee, William J. Hammond, and others.
    Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ,
    C. C. Lester and James W. Lester, for appellants.
    A. W. Sheperd, for respondents Smith and Hickey.
    Jesse Stiles, for respondents Hammond et al.
   MAYHAM, P. J.

On a careful examination of the facts and questions of law raised by the appellants in this case, I think that the judgment should be affirmed, and that a written opinion is not required. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.