
    Oudenarde vs. Van Bergen.
    THE Plaintiff had filed his Declaration in vacation ; and the Rule to plead having expired, he entered interlocutory judgment the Lift, Term, without having firft entered a default.
    
      Spencer for Defendant moved to fet afide this judgment, on the ground that no default had previouily been entered,
   On the iaft day of Term., Mr. JuJlice Lamjing delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.

•“ When this queilioh was prefented in the firft “ inílance. I did fuppofe that the entry of the “ default could not, under the exifting rule, have “ any other effcCt, than merely to preclude the “oppofite Party from pleading; and that the “ Plaintiff might waive the entry of the default, “ and enter a Rule for Judgment.

“ Upon further reflection on the fubjeft, and’ “ after carefully examining the eighth Rule, entered “ in April Term, 1796, it appears to me to be the “ better conitruCtion, that the entry of the de- “ fault is indifpenfable to entitle the Plaintiff to “ his judgment, the expreflion being, “ That tfíe “,default being duly entered, the Party who Jhall “ have had it entered, Jhall not be held afterwards to accept a Declaration or Anfwer, as the Default Jhall happen to be, and may at any Time after jour “ Days in Term Jhall have intervened thereafter, have a Rule for fuch Judgment as is to be rendered by Law, by reafon of the default.” This impofes “ it on the party entering the Default to file the “ neceffary proofs to evince its regularity; and “ if any fubfequent queilion arifes on that fub- “ je£fc, a refort to thofe proofs affords a determi- “ nate teff.

“We are all of opinion that the interlocutory “ judgment be fet afide.”  