
    Bishop v. Bull.
    In the original action,
    George Bull, William Judd, Noadiah Hookes, and Luke Wadsworth, Plaintiffs j- Abraham Bishop and John Bishop, Defendants.
    
    In an action on a joint contract against A. and B. describing B, as not an inhabitant of this State, service on A. alone is •sufficient, though B. should become an inhabitant before the return-day of the writ
    .AlCTIQN of assumpsit.
    
    The defendants were thus described in the writ : ‘‘ Abraham Bishop of New-Haven, and fohn Bishop, “ heretofore of said New-Haven, now dwelling and inhabit-
      ⅛ biff in the Kingdom ofGreat-Britam” The defendants, having suffered a judgment against them, bv default, in the County Court, brought a writ of error to the Superi- or Court, for error in fact, averring, that nineteen days before the return-day of the writ, John Bishop arrived in New-Haven, where he had ever since remained, and that he had never had any legal, or actual notice of the suit.
    1803.
    The defendants in error pleaded specially, that the action was brought on a joint contract, and that more than thirty days before the return-day of the writ, it was duly served on Abraham. Bishop.
    
    To this plea there was a demurrer. The Superior Court adjudged the plea sufficient, and affirmed the judgment of the County Court.
    
      Ingersoll and Smith, (of New-Haven) for the plaintiffs in error.
    Perkins, (of Hartford) and Staples, for the defendants.
   Bv thf, whole Court,

The judgment was affirmed.  