
    * John H. Schroder v. James Eason.
    Where a defendant has placed the copy of a Sum. Pro. with an attorney, with instructions to make a defence, and the attorney neglects to enter an appearance, and judgment goes against defendant by default, the Court will not set aside the proceedings, and permit him to enter an appearance after the adjournment of the Court.
    The brief, in this case, states, that the process was served on the defendant, who brought it to his attorneys, prior to the meeting of the Court, paid an appearance fee, and instructed them in a defence. At the time of leaving the copy, the attorneys marked on the face of the process, “ appearance to be entered,” and on the back, the substance of the defence. Accidentally the names of the attorneys were not entered on the docket, but the copy was put into the bundle of cases ready for trial.
    The case was called between nine and ten o’clock, in the morning, when the bar were not present; and the plaintiff’s attorney, not being aware of a de-fence, called for a decree, which was given, although the account was not strictly proven, and was on its face illegal. It was not discovered until after the adjournment of the Court, and execution lodged, that this error had been committed, when application was made to his Honor, Mr. Justice Bay, to set aside the execution and decree, which was refused.
    An appeal was made to reverse the decision on the grounds :
    1. That this being a case within the process jurisdiction, all cases 'of mistake or accident can be redressed by motion, in the nature of a bill of review.
    2. That the copy process was left with the defendant’s attorney, to appear and defend it, prior to the meeting of the Court; and it was wholly owing to mistake, that the appearance was not entered.
    3. Because the case was called out of the regular order of the docket, when the defendant’s attorneys would have been ready to have attended to the de-fence.
    *2921 Because, for the same reason, no opportunity was given to appeal J ■* from the decision, which, it is contended, was erroneous.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Colcock, J.

Upon the first ground, there is no rule of law or practice, by which the Court is authorized or permitted to review a decision made, or decree given, in a case under the process jurisdiction, in any other way or manner, than is pursued in cases under its higher jurisdiction.

The rules of Court require the defendant to enter his appearance, and file his defence, on or before the first day of the Court, which, it is admitted, was not done. It is true, that where this is neglected, and the omission is discovered, before the cause is called for trial, the Court, upon proper affidavits, have permitted the defendant to plead, provided he did not thereby delay the plaintiff. But to suffer this, after judgment, and after the rising of the Court, would lead to endless litigation and delay, and be productive of the most mischievous consequences. Where a defendant has in his possession a receipt which he neglected to give in evidence on a trial, the Court will not grant a new trial, or even permit an action to be brought on it afterwards. Grimke v. Wilder, Marriott v. Hampton, 2 Esp. U. P. c. 547. 1 Wils. 98. 2 Johnson’s Cases, 282.

As to the third and fourth grounds, the Court settled the order in which the business would be conducted, and announced to the bar an intention to meet at nine, for the express purpoee of taking up the process docket, and trying the cases thereon, until ten o’clock, and pursued the practice, and adjourned the Court to nine on each day.

The last ground charges, that the decision, by which is meant the decree, was erroneous. The error is not specified, nor was it stated in argument. But it is deemed proper to state, that the case was treated *9031 as *a judgment by default, and such evidence as is usual on those J -J occasions, was produced. And the Court, when they have the power to review proceedings, will never do so, unless the applicant show, by satisfactory affidavits, that he has a good and legal defence, of which he might avail himself, on a second hearing.

The motion is dismissed.

Bay, Wott, Johnson and Huger, JJ., concurred.

1 N. & McC. 259 ; Post. 549.  