Halhead v. Ross

by Supreme Court of the United States

HALHEAD verʃus ROSS, et al.

M

OYLAN had entered a rule for trial at the laft term or Non proʃ. The rule being continued ‘till this term, a plea was added, and particular facts referred ; and upon thefe a report had been made a few days before the day appointed for the trial of the caufe.

Lewis, for the Plaintiff, now objected to the trial's coming on; and Moylan infifted that he was entitled to a Non pros.

1789.

But by M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice:– The fubfequent plea and referrence virtually vacate the previous rule for trial or Non pros. The caufe muft, therefore, be continued under a new rule.