
    Cheetham against Lewis.
    
      Slosson moved to set aside the default and subsequent proceedings in this cause. The bill was served on the defendant the 12th day of September, and on the same day he obtained a judge’s order for enlarging the time' . . .. tor pleading. A written notice of the order was duly served on the agent of the plaintiff’s attorney. There .was also an affidavit of merits.
    
      Biker, contra,
    insisted, that the judge’s order had not been regularly served ; that a notice of such order was not sufficient, and that the only proper way of serving such an order was, by showing the original, and leaving a copy with the plaintiff’s attorney, or his agent. ■
    IS cient; a copy of the order, at least, must be served on the attorney of the plaintiff, or his agent.' A notice of a judge’s order enlarging the isr”1fot°suifíRd’
   Per Curiam.

The serving of a notice of a judge’s order is not sufficient; a copy of the order, at least, ought' to have been served.. But as there appears to have been a misapprehension about the practice in this case, the defendant may taire his rule, on payment of costs ; with liberty to the plaintiff to change the venue if he think’ proper ; and if the venue be changed to the city and county of New York, that then the defendant take short notice of trial, which is four days.

Rule granted.  