
    Mary A. Cohnfeld, Appellant, v. Anais C. Bliss, Respondent, Impleaded with Another.
    
      Cohnfield v. Bliss, 174 App. Div. 434, affirmed.
    (Argued March 5, 1917;
    decided March 20, 1917.)
    Appeal by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 8, 1916, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to set aside service of the summons in the above-entitled action for dower and granted said motion.
    The following questions were certified: “1. Does personal service of a summons in an action pending in the Supreme Court of this state, made in the District of Columbia by a deputy United States marshal of the District of Columbia, where an order for service of the summons by publication was duly granted, constitute a valid service of the summons under section 443, subdivision 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it existed between September 1, 1914, and September 1, 1916? 2. Was the service of the summons in this action correctly set aside ? ”
    
      Alexander Holtzoff, J. Philip Berg and Joseph M. Brown for appellant.
    
      Henry W. Hayden and W. K. Post for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; first question certified answered in the negative; second question in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Oh. J., Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Crane, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.  