
    ZMUDCZYNSKI v. REICHLE.
    Process — Vacating Judgment — Jurisdiction. .
    In suit to vacate judgment in summary proceedings on ground that one of defendants therein had not been served with process, decree dismissing suit, held,, justified by evidence showing proper service.
    Appeal from Wayne; Webster (Clyde I.), J.
    Submitted June 6, 1929.
    (Docket No. 83, Calendar No. 34,308.)
    Decided July 8, 1929.
    Bill by Stanley Zmudczynski and another against Carl E. Reichle and others to vacate a judgment for lack of jurisdiction. From decree dismissing bill, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Anthony Nelson, for plaintiffs.
    
      Savery, McKenzie & Hamilton, for defendants.
   Fead, J.

This is a bill' to set aside a judgment in summary proceedings, on the ground that one of the defendants therein, Stanley Zmudczynski, had not been served with process.

It would be of no benefit to the profession to set up the evidence. We have carefully considered it, and agree with the chancellor that defendant was personally served with process, appeared in the proceedings by his attorney, and pleaded to the issue.

Decree dismissing bill is affirmed, with costs.

North, C. J., and Fellows, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.  