110 FEDEBAIi RSPOBTER. �to the defendant must be of a character that deprives hîm of some substantive rights concerning his defences not available in a second suit, or that may be endangered by the dismissal, and uot the mere ordinary inconveniences of double litigation, •which, in the eye of the law, would be compensated by costa. Nor is it necessary to consider the suggestion that the stipula- tion of counsel, and the order upon it, amounts to an agree- ment to try or continue and not dismiss. I am satisfied that the right to dismias is not absolute, and that this case is within the qualification mentioned. Motion denied. �NoTK. — Consult, on the right of the plaîntifE to dismiss, Ordinances of Lord Bacon, Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17; Barton's Suit in Equity, (A.ppendix;) Madd. Ch. Pr. 297; 1 Newl. Ch. 177; 1 Smith's Ch, Pr. (2dEd.)312, (Ed. 1842;) Beame's Eq. Costs, 85, 229, (20 Law Lib.;) 1 Danl. Ch. Pr. (5th Ed.) 790, and compare previous editions ; 1 Hoff. Ch. Pr. 327, and notes ; Iland- ford V. Storie, 2 Sira. & Stu, 196 ; 8. C. 1 Eng. Ch. 196 ; Brandlyn v. Ord, �1 Atk. 571 ; Biiberry v. Mm-ria, 16 8im. 313 ; 8. C. 39 Eng. Ch. 313 ; WhiU Y. Westmeath, 2 Moll. 128; 8. C. 1 Beat. 17; 8. C. 12 Gond. Eng. Ch. 478; Gen. Ord. No. 117, 29 Eng. Ch. (Preflx 66;) 2 Be G. Maen * Gord. 852, note ; Be Orrdl Co. L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 681 ; Bierdemann v. Seymour, 1 Beav. 594; 8. C. 17 Eng. Ch. 594, note ; 29 Eng. Ch. 350; Craft v. John- ton, Tenn. Sup. Ct. Knoxville, 1875 ; EllU v. Smith, Id.; 1 King's Dig. (2d Ed.) 945, 2; Foote v. Oibba, 1 Gray, 412; Bigelow v. Winsor Id. 299, 301; Borrowncale v. Tuttle, 5 Allen 377 ; Sndl v. Dwight, 121 Masa 348 ; Perrine y. Swaim, 2 J. C. 475 ; Burras v. Looher, 4 Paige, 227 ; Uummin» v. Bennet, 8 Paige, 79 ; Simpson v. Bretoster^ 9 Paige, 245 ; Sea Ins. Co. v. Bay, Id. 247 ; Saxton v. Stowell, 11 Paige, 626 ; Railroad Co, v. Wcerd, 18 Barb. 596 ; WUder v. Boynton, 63 Barb. 547, 650 ; Ogsbury v. La Farge, 2 N. Y. 113 ; Smith V. Adams, 24 Wend. 685 ; Conner v. Drake, 1 Ohio 8t. 166 ; French V. Frenek, 8 Ohio, 214; Louderbaeh v. OolUns, 4 Ohio St. 251 ; Srnifh v. Smith, �2 Blackf. (2d Ed.) 232 ; Sprigge v. Wilson, 2 Dev. Eq. 385 ; Sayleav. Tibbetts, 5 R. I. 79, 91; Porter v. Vavghn, 26 Vt. 624, 626; Orubba v. Olayton, 2 Hayw. 675 ; Palmer v. Bankins, 30 Ark. 771 ; Cook v. Walker, 24 Ga. 331 ; Camdfn, etc., v. Stewart, 4 Green, Ch. 69 ; U. S. v. Keen, 1 McLean, 429, at p. 447 ; Welch v. Mandeville, 1 Wheat. 233 ; Goodyear t. Bishop, 4 Blatchf. 438. ����
