
    Zenas S. Harding vs. Isaac P. Noyes, administrator.
    Essex.
    November 7, 1878.
    Endicott & Lord, JJ., absent.
    Answers to interrogatories, signed and sworn to only by the attorney of the party interrogated, are insufficient under the Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 49, requiring such answers to be “ in writing, signed by the party and upon his oath."
    It is within the discretion of a judge either to order a nonsuit to be entered at the expiration of the time fixed for answering interrogatories filed under the Gen. Sta c. 129, § 46, or to allow further time; and, from the exercise of such discretion, an appeal does not lie to this court.
    
      Contract against the administrator of a surety on a bond to dissolve an attachment. The writ was entered, and an answer filed, at December term 1876 of the Superior Court.
    On October 11,1877, the defendant filed interrogatories to be answered on oath by the plaintiff. On January 2, 1878, the court ordered answers to the interrogatories to be filed on or before March 1; and, on February 25, extended the time for filing such answers to March 11. On March 8, the attorney of the plaintiff moved for further time to answer the interrogatories; and filed his own affidavit, stating in detail his efforts to obtain answers from the plaintiff, his belief that the plaintiff was unwilling to answer and had assigned his interest in the action to another person, and that the attorney had a lien on the judgment rendered in the suit in which the attachment was made. The court overruled the motion. On March 9, the attorney filed answers to the interrogatories signed and sworn to by himself “in behalf of the plaintiff, Zenas S. Harding, and in his own behalf as claimant of lien on judgment on which this suit is founded.” On March 22, the court ordered a nonsuit; and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
    
      C. Lamson, for the plaintiff.
    
      E. F. Stone, for the defendant, was not called upon.
   By the Court.

The answers, signed and sworn to by the attorney only, did not comply with the requirement of the statute that they should be signed by the plaintiff himself, and upon his oath. Whether a nonsuit should be entered at the expiration of the time previously fixed for answering, or further time I be allowed to obtain proper answers, was exclusively within the ! discretion of the court below. Gen. Sts. c. 129, §§ 46, 48, 49, 56. Townsend v. Gibbs, 11 Cush. 158. Stern v. Filene, 14 Allen, 9. Judgment affirmed.  