
    Louis Hartwig et al., Respondents, v. Randolph C. Everett et al., Appellants.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term,
    February, 1897.)
    Appeal — Decision on conflicting evidence.
    The decision of the Special Term of a disputed question of fact, if justified by the proofs, will not be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal from order denying motion to set aside the service of summons.
    Douglass & Minton, for appellants.
    Richard Marvin, for respondents.
   Vaw Wtok, Oh. J.

The defendants moved to set aside service of summons on the ground that plaintiffs had enticed them into the jurisdiction by fraud and deceit for the purpose of making such service upon them and they appeal from the. order denying this motion. The rule is well settled that if a defendant be brought within the jurisdiction of the court by any fraud or deceit, the service of process upon him will be set aside. However, in this case the question whether or not the defendants had been enticed into the jurisdiction by plaintiffs’ deceit was in dispute. This disputed question of fact was decided in favor of plaintiffs by the denial of defendants’ motion, and this determination' of that question by the court at Special Term is justified ' by the proofs and will not be disturbed.'

Order affirmed, with costs.

Scotchman, J., concurs.

Order affirmed, with qosts.  