
    
      Ex parte Benson.
    The supreme court will not interfere by mandamus, to compel a court of common pleas to open a rule granted by default, on the ground that the attorney forgot to appear.
    It is a mere matter of discretion with the 0. P. whether they will open the rule or not.
    A mandamus does not lie, to coerce the discretion of an inferior tribunal
    J. A. Spencer moved for a mandamus to the judges of Oneida 0. P., commanding them to set aside a rule to quash an appeal, taken by default against the relator, on motion of Brace and others", appellees. cThe motion was noticed for December term of the 0. P., 1826; and the hearing postponed to the next term, March, 1827. At this time, the relator’s attorney was in Albany attending the supreme court; and the postponement entirely escaped his recollection. On these facts, he moved the 0. P. to vacate the rule, and hear the motion on its merits; but the motion was overruled.
    G. C. Bronson, contra.
   Curia.

Whether the 0. P. would open the rule or not, upon the facts disclosed, rested entirely in their discretion; with which we have nothing to do. The question is not, whether we would have listened to the application, in a like case, upon our rules of practice. The court below have their own rules; and so far as they rest in discretion, *and vi0ia^e no ruje 0f iaWj we uniformij refuse to interfere with ^enii (Vid. Ex parte Bacon, 6 Cowen, 392.) Granting this motion, would be a precedent for reviewing the whole non-enumerated business of every court of O. P. in the state.

Motion denied. 
      
       Eor a very thorough and complete treatise on the law of Mandamus, see note to Fish v. Weatherwax, 2 Johnson’s cases, p. 217, et seq.
      
     