
    Lee against Brown and others.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1810.
    Where the plaintiff resided in a foreign country,and the defendant produced affidavits to show that the judgment,which •was obtained in tered up on the •the attorney of 1803, was satisfied, a rule to show cause why a satisfaction should not he en-record was granted, whiehwas directed to be served by delivering a copy to-, the plaintiff on record, and putting up another copy in the clerk’s office.
    HARRIS, in behalf of the defendant, Brown, moved that the clerk be directed to enter satisfaction on the record of judgment obtained in this cause. From the affidavits which were read, it appeared, that the judgment was obtained in 1803; that ~onas Brooks, acting as the agent of the plaintiff, who resided in England, accepted the promissory note of Robert Roberts, for the amount of the judgment, and in satisfaction thereof, which note was, afterwards, paid; that Brooks and the~ plaintiff are both in England; and that one of the defendants is dead, and another has left the state.
   Per Curiam.

Take a rule on the plaintiff to show cause at the next term, why satisfaction should not be entered up on the record; serve a copy of the rule on the attorney on record, and put up another copy in the clerk’s office.

Rule accordingly.  