Per Curiam. It appears that the defendant did not enter any appearance before the expiration of the rule, nor indeed was it until some weeks after, that any appearance was entered. It is suggested in answer, that notice ought to have been served of the entry of the rule: this is on the other hand denied ; and rightly. The default, therefore, is regular, and no reason whatever is assigned how it has been incurred. In all such cases we have determined to hold the party to hisdefault.
The rule of this court says “ Up-£f on the return of writs of sci.fa. if the defendant be u returned warned, or the second writ be returned “ nihil, the defendant shall appear in four days, or ££ judgment shall be entered by default.” Therefore the entry of the default is perfectly consistent with the practice of the court, and must remain: But as judgment ought not have been signed till four days after, and it appears to have been done on the very day, that is irregular, and therefore must be set aside. Rule of October, 1791. ante, p. 38.