
    Cook and another v. Crawford.
    where the entry of Anal judgment against both defendants recited that judgment by default had been taken against one of thorn on tho fourth day of the term, and no entry of any sueli j udgmont appeared of record, it ivas hold that tho recital did not afi'oet tho regularity of the judgment.
    Error from Ilavris. There was service on the defendant, Gabriel S. Cook, by publication, previous to the Fall Term, 1S47. At the Spring Term, IS 18, there was an entry in the minutes, simply of “judgment by default,” against this defendant. At the Fall Term, 1848, about three weeks after the commencement of the term, there was judgment iinal against hotli defendants. This judgment recited that judgment Iinal by default had been taken against the defendant, G. S. Cook, on'the fourth day of the term. Ho sueli judgment, however, appeared in the record.
    
      W. Alexander, for plaintiffs in error.
   WheeleR, J.

Tho only final judgment which appears was taken long after the fourth day of the term. It was the third term after service by publication, and the second after the passage of the act of 1848, (Hart. Dig’., art. 812,) which authorizes the taking of judgment by default at the second term after service, “ as in other ” that is, after the fourth day of the term, where the defendant does not appear. Judgment was so taken in the present ease, aud it cannot affect its validity that it recited a proceeding which, if it occurred, was merely nugatory. We see no reason to be dissatisfied with the judgment of affirmance heretofore rendered in the cáse,, and are of opinion that the petition aiid proceedings thereupon, in the application for a rehearing, bo set aside.

Ordered accordingly.  