
    Dewitt against Post.
    NEW YORK,
    October, 1814.
    On a writ of te,Qroniymthe compiatned of are reversed! proceedlngsre ’’eadied "from whence the plaintiff may, ■after reversal, riginai action, obíi^edtocomnmoe lt *
    ment In clseof reversal for error m Jad, is that the jadgmeut below ie rccazzed,-but for error in lam, that it ie re‘ysrscá
    THE plaintiff had obtained a verdict at the Ulster circuit, in November, 1812, in this action, which was for debauching the plaintiff’s daughter; special bail had been put in. At the time tlie P*ea pleaded, the defendant was an infant, but had apPeared by attorney, which, on a writ of error coram vobis, he assi§‘nec* f°r error, and the judgment was reversed,
    The sole question now presented for the opinion of the court * A A was, whether the plaintiff might proceed in continuance of the former suit, commencing with the declaration filed therein, and if the defendant did not plead thereto, might enter his default, an<f execute a writ of inquiry in the original suit; or should be put to commence his action de novo.
    
    The case was submitted to the court without argument. 0
   Platt, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.. This court, . . . , . , . on writ oí error coram vobis, gave judgment, if correctly enter- • ed, that its former judgment, in this cause, be “ revoked, annulled, and altogether held for nothing,” for an error in fact; viz. that the defendant, being an infant, appeared by attorney. It seems, judgment of reversal for error in fact, is revocetur.” For error in law, « reverseturP (Bac. Abr. tit. Error. (M) s. 2. Rol. Abr. 805.) i

In this case the first judgment is recalled, for error dehors the . record ; but, according to the forms of entries, in such cases, the “proceedings” are not reversed and annulled. (Tidd's Practical Forms, 304. &c.)

In the case of Cuming v. Silly, (Burr. 2490.) Lord Mansfield says, “ Where the defendant below brings a writ of error, we only reverse such wrong part of the judgment as he complains of.”

In this case we correct our own judgment. The record has never been out of this court; and I see no reason for compelling the plaintiff, who no doubt made an innocent mistake, to commence his suit de novo.

Let a new rule to plead be entered.  