Case Name: MEAD et al., Respondents, v. HARTWELL et al., Appellants
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-05-18
Citations: 28 N.Y.S. 1150
Docket Number: 
Parties: MEAD et al., Respondents, v. HARTWELL et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 28
Pages: 1150–1150

Head Matter:
MEAD et al., Respondents, v. HARTWELL et al., Appellants.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
May 18, 1894.)
Action by Charles H. Mead and another against H. Edgar Hartwell and others.
Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK and McCARTHY, JJ.
J. C. & H. C. Smith & Koepke, for appellants.
Dill & Chandler, for respondents.

Opinion:
McCARTHY, J.
There is nothing in the objection of the appellants; it is too finely drawn. The summons complies with the order and its intent. The order is therefore affirmed, with costs. All concur.