
    *Sheldon against M’Evers.
    In error from s court of common pleas, the plaintiff may proceed by a rule on the defendant to join in error or by a scire facias ad audiendum errores•
    
    In error from the court of common pleas, of the county of Albany.
    
      Yates, for the plaintiff in error,
    produced an affidavit of the due service of a rule requiring the defendant to join in-error, or that the plaintiff be heard ex parte, and he moved to be heard accordingly.
    The only question was,, whether this- proceeding by ruiewas regular.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff may proceed by rule to join in error only, or by sci. fa. ad. aud. errores,, and as the defendant does not appear, let the judgment be reversed of course.

Judgment reversed. 
      
       “ Asíate as the case of Sealy v. Shattuck, (infra, vol.2, 69,) it was the practice to enter a rule that the defendant in error join-in error, or that the plaintiff in error be heard ex parte. But we believe that the practice for the last twenty years has been different,—to enter a rule that the defendant join in error in twenty days, or that his default be entered, and upon such default*, to enter a rule for judgment of reversal.” Oppie v. Colegrove, 19 Johns. R. 124. Burr v. Waterman, 18 id. 508. 2 Gra. Prac. 2d edit. 955.
     