
    JANUARY TERM, 1834.
    Walker v. King.
    A waiver in the record, in these terms — “ came the parties by their attorneys, and the defendant waives all service of any writ, and pleadings” — estops the party assigning for error the want of writ, declaration or pleadings, or the want of authority in the attorney of record, &c.
    ERROR to the Circuit Court of Hinds county.
    At the January term, 1833, of the circuit court for the county of Hinds, in a suit instituted by Samuel T. King against Felix H. Walker, came the parties by their attorneys, and the defendant waives all service of writ and pleadings, and thereupon a jury were evnpannelled, who rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in said court; upon which verdict, judgment was rendered by the court.
    The plaintiff in error assigned the following errors:
    1. There was no writ in said cause.
    
      2. There was no declaration.
    3. There was no issue joined.
    4. There was no letter of attorney produced.
    5. C. Barton and Enloe, for plaintiff in error.
    Caldwell and Scott, contra.
    
   By the Court,

Smith, Justice.

Four cases of error have been assigned, but looking into the record we find that their foundation is entirely swept away by the waiver on record of the party suing out this writ of error. It is stated in the record that the parties came by their attorneys, and that the defendant waives all service of writ, pleading, &c. The party is wholly estopped by his own act appearing of record.

Judgment below affirmed.  