
    Jackson, ex dem. Martin, against Platt.
    Where, after a verdict, and within the two days allowed for making a case, the defendant’s attorney applied to the plaintiff’s attorney for certain papers which had been read in evidence, which were necessary to be put in the ease, which were refused by the plaintiff’s attorney, and the defendant’s attorney could not, for that reason, make np the case; the court ordered, that the plaintiff’s attorney furnish the papers to the defendant’s attorney, or permit him to take extracts, and that the proceedings should, in the meantime, he stayed.
    After the trial of this cause, and within the time allowed fox making a case, the defendant’s attorney applied to the attorney for the plaintiff for the inspection of certain papers, which had been read in evidence, to enable him to make the case, and which were necessary for that purpose. These were refused, and the ■ defendant’s attorney for that reason could not make the case. Two orders had been obtained from a judge to stay the proceedings on this Aground, the first of which was served on the plaintiff’s attorney, who, notwithstanding the order, proceeded to enter a judgment on the verdict.
    
      Yan Yechten,
    for the defendant, now moved to set aside the proceedings subsequent to the verdict, with costs.
    
      YYoodworth and Spencer, contra.
   Per Curiam.

It was improper in the plaintiff’s attorney to refuse an inspection of the papers, or not to furnish sufficient extracts from them, to enable the defendant’s attorney to make the case. It is therefore ordered, that the defendant have time to make a case until eight days after the expiration of the present term, and that the plaintiff’s attorney furnish the papers required for that purpose, or suffer the defendant’s attorney to take sufficient extracts from the same, and that the proceedings in this cause remain in their present state, until the further order of the court.() 
      
      (a) See 2 Grab. Frac. 2d ed. 331 ; and see note to Jackson, ex dem. Low v. Hornbeck, infra, 115.
     