
    
      The President and Directors of the Manhattan Company v. Stephen Miller.
    
    THIS was an action on a promissory note in which the plaintiff had duly appeared by attorney, and the defendant pleaded a judgment recovered. To this the plaintiffs replied ; but in their replication began, <{ And the said President and Directors of the Man- 
      “ hattan Company say,” 8cc. without mentioning by attorney, and so went on negativing the whole plea, without having their replication signed by counsel, concluding to the country, and adding the similiter on which they went to trial and took an inquest.
    Woods,
    on an affidavit stating these facts, moved to set the inquest aside, for irregularity.
    
      Bogert, contra.
    The replication is in the usual form. It is a mere negation of the plea, without alleging any new fact, and therefore not a special pleading. Besides, the name of a counsel is indorsed on the back.
    
      
       See Sandford v. Rogers, 2 Wils. 113. 2 Tidd’s Prac. 673. See also Esplin v. Smallet, Say. 208.
    
   Per Curiam.

There was no occasion for a counsel’s hand ; unquestionably the plea is not special. If it was, there is the name of counsel indorsed. Besides, had it been so, it ought not have been retained. Let the defendant take nothing by his motion, and pay the costs of resisting the application.  