
    Lawrence against Warner, gentleman, one of the attornies, &c.
    bl11. the nature of tousTbe served personally in all cases. on the defend-the officeVÍ during the defence,“will nft be good.
    A bill of privilege was served on the clerk of the defendant in his ornee, but during his absence; and it never came to h*s hands. A default having been taken against the defendant,
    
      J. Platt,
    moved to set it aside, with all subsequent proceedings, for irregularity. He said, that this bill, being in the nature of process, must be personally served. (1 Dunlap’s Pract. 76, and the cases there cited.) 
    
    Butler, contra,
    said, that the case's referred to had decided merely, that service upon the agent of the attorney was insufficient. He likened this proceeding to a subpoena in chancery, which might be served on the wife, or some'one of the defendant’s family, between whom and himself the relation of master and servant exists. Both are process; and the reason seems to be much stronger in favour of this service upon the defendant’s clerk, who understands the subject. The Court will regard this as equivalent to a personal service within the rule in Backus v. Rogers, (8 John. 346.)
    
      
      
         Backus v. Rogers, 8 John. Rep. 346. The President, &c. of the Bridgeport Bank v. Sherwood, gent. &c. 16 id. 43.
    
   Curia.

The bill is in the nature of process, and must be / served personally in all cases.

Motion granted.  