Pollock v. Hall
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
These causes were referred, on the 22d of January 1800, by agreement of the parties, and several meetings were held by the referees, at which the parties exhibited their respective proofs, and were heard by themselves or their agents.
Read the full summary
These causes were referred, on the 22d of January 1800, by agreement of the parties, and several meetings were held by the referees, at which the parties exhibited their respective proofs, and were heard by themselves or their agents. The plaintiff conceiving, however, that he had more evidence, which might be produced at a future period, or conjecturing that the referees were unfavorable to his claims, ordered the actions to be discontinued, on the 21st of April 1800, and gave notice of the discontinuance to the defendant. But the referees proceeded to decide upon the matters referred ; and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
— The ease of Sterret v. Chambers et al. induced us to pause, before we decided the point now submitted to our consideration. It does not appear, however, that the right to discontinue was at all contested in that case ; and the other cases, cited from our records, do not import any judicial decision, that would be binding upon us, as authority, on the present occasion.
In this situation, we think we are at liberty to deny the right for which the plaintiff contends ; and that the policy of the legislature, *as well r*224 as the principles of justice, will sanction the denial. The act…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mechanics' Bank v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
- M'CULLUM v. CoxeSupreme Court of the United States · 1785
- Broom v. FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1800
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ky Lai Vu v. D. Martin, et al.District Court, C.D. California · 2026