
    Pratt and Barker vs. the Bank of Windsor.
    The service of a subpcena upon a defendant out of the state is irregular.
    This was a motion to set aside the default entered, in this case, and the service of the subpoena, on the ground that the suhpoena was served out of the state. It appeared that the subpoena was served on the defendants in the state of Vermont.
    February 2.
    D. Goodwin in support of the motion.
    The service of the subpoena was irregular and void; the service and all subsequent proceedings must, therefore, be set aside. R. S., 366, 367, 371; Dunn vs. Dunn, 4, Paige R., 425.
    T. Romeyn opposed the motion.
    Cited 1 Hoff, Pr., 110 to 112, n.
    
   The Chancellor.

This motion must be granted on the authority of the case of Dunn vs. Dunn, 4 Paige, 425. The case is there fully considered, and Chancellor Walworth, after a full examination of all the authorities upon the subject, comes to the conclusion, that the.service of a subpoena out of the state, is irregular.

Motion granted.  