Remsen v. Isaacs ( 1803 )

Woods contra.

In King v. Hughes it was determined, that if a motion be made as non-enumcrated for irregularity, the ground of merits muft be abandoned, though on the merits the irregularity may be infilled on.

Per curiam. The rule is according to the decifion cited. The application mull be for irregularity only to bring it on as a non-enumerated motion. If merits are united, it becomes enumerated.