
    Moore and others against M'Ewen.
    
      Tuesday, December 20.
    The apearance of an infant by attorney in the Court below is error and is assignable as such in this Court.
    If it be assigned for error that an infant appeared below by attorney, the plea of nullo est erratum confesses the nullo confesses the fact.
    In Error.
    ERROR to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia.
    
    It was assigned for error in this case, that Reuben Moore, jun. an infant, one of the plaintiffs in error, and one of the defendants below, appeared in the Court below by attorney,C and not by guardian. The defendant in error pleaded in ,, nnllo est erratum.
    
    Shoemaker, for the plaintiffs in error,
    contended, that if error in fact be well assigned, in nullo est erratum confesses the fact, and that the appearance of an infant by attorney, is error. 2 Bac. Ab. 407. Cro. Jac. 250. 420. 8 Johns. 192. 3 Bac. Ab. 617. 1 Dall. 165.
    
    Dallas, contra,
    contended, that the fact of infancy did not appear on the record: in which case the plea of in nullo est erratum, does not admit it. Morris v. Fletcher.
      
       Yelv. 58.
    
    
      
      
         Cro. Car. 53.
    
   Per Curiam.

We are of opinion, that by the plea of in ' nullo est erratum, it is confessed that Reuben Moore, junr. an infant, did appear by attorney; and we are also of opinion, that the appearance of an infant by attorney in the Court below, is assignable for error in this Court. It was so decided in Sliver v. Shelback, 1 Dall. 165. The judgment must therefore be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  