Hurst v. Selvidge
Tennessee Supreme Court
In this case in the Circuit Court of Grainger, May Term, 1846, a motion iras made by the defendant for a judgment of non pros for want of replication. At the •January Term, 1847, the defendant amended his plea. At the September Term, 1847, on Saturday, the 28th of August, a general continuance of all cases on the Civil Docket not litigated, was entered.
Read the full summary
In this case in the Circuit Court of Grainger, May Term, 1846, a motion iras made by the defendant for a judgment of non pros for want of replication. At the •January Term, 1847, the defendant amended his plea. At the September Term, 1847, on Saturday, the 28th of August, a general continuance of all cases on the Civil Docket not litigated, was entered. On the succeeding Saturday the defendant renewed his motion for a non pros, upon which the Court entered up a judgment of dismissal against the plaintiff, from which he appealed in error to this Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the COURT:
After the continuance of the cause no rules or proceedings could be had in it until the succeeding term.*
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
A general continuance of all causes at the end of the Term -will prevent a discontinuance, without an entry of continuance in each particular case. Peck, J., in Johnson v. Ditty, 7 Yerg. 85-87. But see King of Spain v. Oliver, Pet. C. C. 217, where it was held that the continuance of a cause by consent does not discharge a rule for trial or non pros.
2Cited by45 opinions
- Galena & Chicago Union Railroad v. JacobsIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- State v. WrightOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Adams v. MarshallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Oliver v. Columbia, Newberry & Laurens R. R.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1902
- Austin v. BarrettSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.