Case Name: Charles H. Mead et al., Respondents, v. H. Edgar Hartwell et al., Appellants
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-05
Citations: 8 Misc. 693
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles H. Mead et al., Respondents, v. H. Edgar Hartwell et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 693–693

Head Matter:
Charles H. Mead et al., Respondents, v. H. Edgar Hartwell et al., Appellants.
Dill <& Chandler, for respondents.
J. C. dk H. C. /Smith & Koejpke, for appellants.

Opinion:
McCarthy, J.
There is nothing in the objections of the appellants.
It is too finely drawn. The summons complies with the order and its intent.
The order is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.
Ehrlich, Ch. J., and Vah Wyck, J., concur.
Order affirmed, with costs.