Briggs v. Briggs , 3 Johns. 449 ( 1808 )

Per Curiam.

In the case of Jackson, ex dem Russel, v. Stiles, there were peculiar circumstances, though not fully reported, which afforded strong reason to believe that there was really no defence on the merits, and that delay was the only object of the defendant. A good and substantial defence must mean a defence on the merits.

Rule granted.