
    Pierson vs. Miles & Mullender.
    Where a suit is prosecuted by two attorneys doing business together as a firm, who have no agent at one of the clerk’s offices, a notice of retainer, directed to them by the defendant, may be posted in such office, although one of the firm has an agent at that place.
    This suit was prosecuted by A. and B., a law firm, as attorneys for the plaintiff. The declaration was served upon the defendants personally, and not receiving notice of the retainer of an attorney to defend the suit, the plaintiff’s attorneys entered the default of the defendants for not pleading, and perfected judgment. It now appeared, that previous to the entry of the default, a notice of retainer was posted in the clerk’s office at Geneva, the firm of A. and B. having no agent there; although one of the jirm, viz. A., had an agent at that place, and the defendants on that ground moved to set aside the default and all subsequent proceedings for irregularity. It was insisted, for the plaintiff, that the notice of retainer should have been served upon the agent of A.
    
      September 18.
   By the Court,

Nelson, J.

The firm having no agent at Geneva, the defendants were not bound to serve the notice of retainer on the agent of one of the firm; and the notice having been duly posted, previous to the entry of the default, the default was irregularly entered, and must be set aside.  