The opinion
*701 Mooee, J.,
Concurring in result: The grounds alleged in the second motion and those alleged in the first motion are the same. However, when the first motion was heard, no evidence was offered to support the general allegation that defendant had a meritorious defense.
I would affirm, but on this limited ground. When it appeared, as found by Judge Paul, that evidence relevant to defendant’s alleged meritorious defense was not available when the matter was heard by Judge Hall, it was permissible for Judge Paul to consider the matter further in relation to the question of meritorious defense.
If Judge Hall, upon evidence as to facts upon which defendant based its defense, had found that defendant had no meritorious defense, my view is that appeal would have been defendant’s sole remedy.
Bobbitt and Rodman, J.J., concur in concurring opinion.