
    *Salter & Steele against Bridgen, one of the Attorneys, &c.
    Service of a copy o'f a bill against an attorney, on a person in his office, who appeared to be one of his family, was held not sufficient where the receipt of it was denied, and no reason'shown why a better service was not made.
    Troup nioved to set aside a default, entered in this cause for not pleading, on an affidavit by the defendant, that a copy of the bill filed therein, had ndt been served on him, nor had at any time come to his hands.
    
      Evertson opposed the motion,
    and offered affidavits on the part of the plaintiffs, showing that a copy of the bill had been served by delivering the same to a person who appeared to be one of the defendant’s family, at his office; but it was iiot proved to have been served either on the defendant, personally, nor on any clerk or person employed in his office.
   Per Curiam.

The service by delivering a copy to one of the defendant’s family, although at his office, is not of itself sufficient, especially, when it is denied to have been,received by him, and no reason is shown why a better service could not have been made. Let the default be set aside with costs.

Motion granted. 
      
       An affidavit of service on a person in an attorney’s office must show that there is a relation between him and the person served. Rathbone v. Blackford, 1 Caines’ R. 243. Gra. Prac. 711, 712, 2d edit." ",
     