
    Lathrop against Judivini.
    Where an atatroné dweL lmg house,.and another dweiheSiA°Uabsent¡ leaving no one the service °f ,, PaP™ should be by delivery to ■belonging618 to 'the house whore he than^’to^ono belonging to the house whore his of■fice is kept.
    J. Dickson, moved to set aside the default for not joining in error, and all subsequent proceedings for irregularity. He reaq affidavits, showing that before the rule for joining in error had expired, the defendant’s attorney, on inquiry, found that the plaintiff’s attorney was absent from home, He had an office, at which a clerk occasionally attended, but he was not in the office, and the plaintiff’s attorney, and pjg wife, who was also absent, boarded at his father’s house. 7 " which was in the same neighborhood with his office. The joinder in error was served on his father, at the house where he boarded.
    
      Dickson
    
    cited Gelston v. Swartwout, 1 John. Cas. 136.
    S. A. contra, Foot,
    read an affidavit showing that the office . . . TT was a part of a dwellmg-house-where a family resided, tie ■ insisted that the service should have been on some per son in that house, ox some excuse be shown, why it was not. Tiie rale cited authorizes a service at the attorney’s dwelling-house, if no one is at the office, but not upon one in a nouse where he is a boarder merely. The boarding house of the attorney may be and frequently is a considerable distance from the office. The proper service, in such a case, would be on one in the house where the office is kept.
   Woodworth, J.

The reason of the rule is in favor of the course pursued here. The paper will be better taken care of by a person belonging to the house where the attorney is a boarder, than by an entire stranger, as the person may be, though he reside in the same house where the office is kept.

Motion granted.  