Halhead v. Ross et al.

Halhead v. Ross et al. Practice. — Rule for trial or non-pros. Moylan had entered a rule for trial at the last term or nonpros. The rule being continued until this term, a plea was added, and particular facts referred; and upon these, a report had been made, a few days before the day appointed for the trial of the cause. Lewis, for the plaintiff, now objected to the trial’s coming on ; and Moylan insisted that he was entitled to a nonpros. But by— [MAJORITY — *McKean, Chief Justice.] *McKean, Chief Justice. The subsequent plea and reference virtually vacate the previous rule for trial or non-pros. The cause must, therefore, be continued, under a new rule.