
    Read against Kennedy.
    Where an4 appearance is entered .for a defendant by an attorney, there is no occasion, afterwards to serve a rule to plead tOn- defendant. And if such attorney lires at a distance, so that the rule shnnot he personally served on him, posting-is
    ÍHIS was a rule upon the plaintiff, to shew caus'e, caí the' August return day, why judgment, obtained in this case, should riot be set aside for irregularity, upon the ground that the rule to plead was posted when the defendant was resident in the city.’
    
      The writ was to September return, 1790; the sheriff returned personal service. On the back of the writ was endorsed an appearance by Tate, an attorney, who resides far back in the district of Ninety-six. The declaration was filed on the 26th of March, 1791 ; and the plaintiff’s attorney not being able to serve the rule to plead upon Tate, by reason of his remote residence, on the 1st of April posted She same, as in a case where no appearance is entered*. The rule was taken down and carried to Mr. Harper, ano» iher attorney, who, on the 2d of April, entered an appear*-anee at the clerk’s office, but filed no plea.. At the expiration of the time limited to plead by the rule, (viz. 11th oí April,_ 1791,) the plaintiff’s attorney took an order for judgment, and on the last term, viz. on the 26th of May, 1791? executed his writ of inquiry. It appeared that the defendant had been allowed the usual imparlance, or indulgence, which was granted as a matter of course by the plaintiff’s attorney, on the appearance being entered <?n the writ by Tate.
    
    
      Marshall, for the rule,
    urged, that the rule of court requires personal service of the rule to plead on the defendant’s attorney ; but it was answered, and agreed to by the court, that where the attorney lives at a distance, in the country, there is no other way to give him notice of rules, but by posting them.
    It was then urged, that a rule is not to be posted where the defendant resides in town ; but the court resolved, that where there is an appearance by attorney entered, the plaintiff need take no notice of the personal residence of the defendant, nor need he communicate with him, but posting the rule will be sufficient.
    It was lastly urged, by the defendant, that he had a substantial defence, viz. a discount, and that he was desirous of having an opportunity to avail himself of it; but it was again answered, and resolved by the court, that be ought tq have come in at the beginning of last term. That he should not be permitted to put tin? plaintiff to further delay, when there had been no surprise, and he had slipped all his opportunities.
   Per tot. Cur.

Let the rule be discharged.  