Hammond v. Haws
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
The defendant had obtained a rule in October term last for a trial at this term or non pros.2 E. Tilghman now moved to make the rule absolute, the counsel for the plaintiff stating that the cause was not ready to be brought on by him at this term.
Read the full summary
The defendant had obtained a rule in October term last for a trial at this term or non pros.2 E. Tilghman now moved to make the rule absolute, the counsel for the plaintiff stating that the cause was not ready to be brought on by him at this term. The issue was joined in October term, 1795, and according to the practice in Pennsylvania, was handed up on the trial list for this term. [Hammond’s lessee], moved for a continuance, (which it seems is the mode of taking the opinion of the court against the application for a non pros.). He said, that the non pros, under the rule of last term, and…
1Opinion of the Court
GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge.4
I have no hesitation in this case to say the rule for a non pros, should be made absolute. The plaintiff let the cause sleep from October, 1795 to October, 1800. The defendant harassed with attendances, then took the rule for trial or non pros. This was served on Mr. Wilcocks, and was a solemn notice, that the defendant would be tried or discharged. Since then seven months have elapsed; the lessors having a regular agent, and an attorney for transacting their business. The vague allegations that their attorney had about that time or since, declined business, and their…
2Cited by42 opinions
- Davis v. WakeleeSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- McArthur v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Fritts v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- May v. MaySupreme Court of the United States · 1897
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.