
    Hackley against Hastie and Patrick.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1808.
    where a tained to stay a‘verdfct,^ the Party in whose favour the verdiet was given. rule nisi for t!ieSfourth°day of tlle next term.
    AFTER a verdict for the plaintiff in this cause, at the last sittings, the defendants obtained a judge’s order for the stay of proceedings, which was regularly served before the term. The plaintiff’s attorney, notwithstanding the order, filed the postea on the fourth day of term, and en- . . tered a rule for judgment, nisi, &c.
    Wells, for the defendants,
    now moved to vacate the rule entered, on the ground, that after the service of the order to stay proceedings, no further step could be taken in the cause.
    Colden, contra.
    The entry of a rule nisi was regular. It cannot prejudice the defendants ; for no judgment is entered up ; and in case the verdict is set aside, the rule will be a mere nullity. If the party is not allowed to file his postea, and enter the rule conditionally, he may be de-. , . iayed a term where the motion for a new trial is decided at Albany, or so late in term, that there is not time for .the.rule for judgment to be entered, or to expire.
   Per Curiam.

The entering of a rule nisi for judgment, cannot prejudice the defendant, and if not done on the fourth day of term, may produce inconvenience to the plaintiff, in case a new trial should be refused. No judgment can be entered up, until the motion for a new trial ip decided.

Rule refused.  