“This is a motion to set aside an order entered in this cause on the 2d day of September, in this present term, dismissing the complainant’s bill with costs. The motion is founded on an affidavit stating, that the defendant died before such order was entered. It now appears that Hill died on the first day of this term. By the common law, the death of one of the parties before judgment, abates the suit. There can, therefore, be no doubt but that the order was irregularly entered, and must be set aside.

“On the 19th day of July, in the year 1813, Joseph Kauman, John I. Labouisse, and Nicholas M.

“This case comes up on a writ of error to the District Court for the Northern District of this state. And the question presented for consideration arises out of a special verdict, upon which judgment has been given for the defendant. The result depends entirely upon the construction and location of the deed from Robert Morris to Andrew Craigie, of the 6th of April, 1797, under which the lessors of the plaintiff claims . . .

“This is a motion to set aside the judgment entered in this cause during the present term, reversing the judgment of the District Court of the Northern District of this state. The motion is founded, on an allegation that the judgment was irregularly entered, being in violation of an order to stay the proceedings; and the motion is resisted on the ground, that the order was not duly served on the plaintiff’s attorney. The service was upon the law agent of the attorney in the Supreme Court of this state, and the first question is, whether this was a good service.”

“The application in this case is for a mandamus directed to the District Judge of the Northern District of this state, requiring him to vacate a rule which had been granted, allowing certain amendments of the record in this cause, and also to vacate and annul such amendments. If it was proper to enter into an examination of the regularity of such amendments, or the authority of the District Court, to allow them under the circumstances disclosed in the affidavits, the propriety of the amendments would at least be very questionable.”