
    Briggs against Briggs.
    °ix a motion to quest taken by ^avit defendant bao ? goi.il andsubstantialdefence ^sufficient ¿ fidavit of ments'
    SHERWOOD, for the defendant,
    moved to set aside ■an inquest taken by default in this cause, on an affidavit, •vvhich stated that an inquest had been taken by default, See. and that the defendant had “ a good and substantial defence in the cause.”
    
      Sedgwick, contra,
    objected, that them was not a smheient affidavit of merits. He cited Jackson, ex dem. Russel, v. Stiles, (3 Caines, 93.)
   Per Curiam.

In the case of Jackson, ex dem Russel, v. Stiles, there were peculiar circumstances, though not fully reported, which afforded strong reason to believe that there was really no defence on the merits, and that delay was the only object of the defendant. A good and substantial defence must mean a defence on the merits.

Rule granted.  