
    Frasier, jun. against Frasier.
    ALBANY,
    Jan. 1812.
    This court ex-ercisc an cquifable juris* diction over tern™6" upon wommte “of attorney^and cation of a creditor, stating that a í^en™fraudalentiy enured and “warrant of attorney, an issue was directed be-parties to try the allegation, undirected to prove the con-. «deration ot the bond; and allowed “to subpeena witnesses m tne name of the attend ’the trial.
    I. H. TIFFANY, in behalf of a creditor, movedlo set aside ^ iu¿¡n.ment which had been entered up in this cause, by war-u o *■ * rant of attorney, on the ground of fraud. It appeared that the plaintiff, who ivas the son of the defendant, was an infant when the bond and warrant of attorney were given to him, and had always ]ive¿ on the farm with his father; and that an execution had been issued on the judgment, and the farm advertised for sale.
    
      Parker, contra, read the affidavit of the plaintiff, denying the charge of fraud, and stating, that the bond was given for work and services performed, and money paid for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

We have an equitable jurisdiction over ludements entered up by confession on bonds and warrants of attorney, The proper course is to direct an issue to try the charge of fraud, Let an issue, therefore, be made up between the parties, under the direction of one of the justices of this court, in such manner that the plaintiff be bound, on the trial of the issue, to set forth and prove the matters and consideration for which the bond was given j ¿efen¿{ant - and that the issue be tried at the next Scoharie circuit; and that T. G, the creditor, in whose behalf the application is made, be permitted to subpeena witnesses to attend such trial, in the name of the defendant; and that all further proceedings on the said judgment and execution be stayed, until the further order of this court.  