
    Charles H. Lapham v. Thatcher B. Kenyon.
    TRe act of January session, 1839, entitled “An act in addition to CR. 161 of tRe Revised Statutes, ‘ Of tRe Supreme Court,’ ” does not repeal or affect tRe 27tR rule of Practice at Law, wliicR requires an affidavit of merits to accompany a motion to answer an action at law on tRe second day of tRe term.
    This was a motion to answer an action at law, brought upon a promissory note against the defendant as maker. The motion was made on the second day of the term, and was not accompanied by an affidavit stating the -defence to the action, as required by the 27th rule of practice at law, but merely stating in that regard, that the defendant “ had a good defence to the suit.”
    
      Lapham,, for the plaintiff,
    
    objected, that the rule had not been complied with.
    
      W. II Potter
    
    contended, th$t the rule had been repealed by the act of January session, 1859, entitled “ An act in addition to Ch. 164 of the Revised Statutes, ‘ Of the Supreme Court.’ ”
   The Court

held, that the statute was directed solely against the 29th rule of practice at law, which required an affidavit of defence in order to a jury trial, in a case at issue ; and had no application to the 27th rule, which- regulated the terms upón which a party in default should be permitted to answer an action.

Motion refused.  