
    Connable v. Colvin et al.
    Original Notice: taking effect of code. Where an original notice was served before the Code of 1873 took effect, and the time when answer should be made was subsequent, TieMthat the time of pleading would be governed by the Code.
    
      Appeal from the Ringgold District Court.
    
    Monday, June 21.
    On the 9th day of July, 1873, plaintiff commenced an action against Alfred and Elizabeth J. Oolvin for the foreclosure of a mortgage, making Jacob Elliott a party as a purchaser subsequent to the mortgage.
    The original notice was returnable to the September Term of court, which commenced September 1st, 1873, and was served on the defendant, Elliott, in Union county, August 13th, 1873.
    On the second day of the term default was entered against Alfred and Elizabeth J. Colvin.
    The defendant, Jacob Elliott, appeared by attorney and asked for sixty days from the time of service within which to file his answer.
    The court refused his request, entered a default against him for want of an answer, and rendered a judgment and decree as prayed. He appeals.
    
      D. D. Gregory, for appellant.
    
      Laughlin & Hewry, for appellee.
   Day, J. —

In the case of Brotherton v. Brotherton, at the present term, we held where a notice was served before the Code of 1873 took effect, and the first day of the succeeding term was after the Code went into operation, that the time of pleading was governed by the provisions of the Code. Following that case, the judgment in this is

Affirmed.  