
    
      *Ex parte Crosby.
    The recorder of New York made an order to supersede an execution against one Eoyall, m custody at the suit of Crosby, on process issued by the C. P. of New York. This was founded on an order tó show cause, which the relator’s attorney insisted was not regularly served, there being no C0Py finished to him. On motion to the C. P. to quash the supersedeas, that court received affidavits showing that the relator’s attorney agreed, on the original being shown, to waive a regular service of the order by copy; and nied the motion, though the 66th general rule of that court is, “that no agreement between the parties in a cause, or their attorneys, shall be binding, unless admitted or reduced to writing.”
    
      Service of a ry to an order by7pbarJaiand so any formal service though of86thealcourt require all agreements to be in writing.
    There is a distinction under Buoh a rule between waiver and agreement.
    
      
      G. O'Connor now moved for a mandamus,
    commanding the O. P. to quash the supersedeas.
    
      W..F. Osgood and J. M. Bitchy, contra.
   Curia.

This is not a case of agreement between the attorneys ; but of waiver. There is no doubt that an attorney may waive, by parol, the service of a paper, or any formal requisite in its service; and we should hold him to it, notwithstanding our 12th general rule of April term, 1796, which is, in substance, like the rule in question.

Motion denied.  