Smith v. Davids

Decided January 1, 1789

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1789-01

Held: that the rule for trial, or non-pros., was continued; and that no new notice was necessary. If, therefore, the plaintiff does not go on to trial, the defendant is entitled to a non-pros. (a) (a) s. p. King of Spain v. Oliver, Peters C. C. 217; and see Halhead v. Ross, ante, p. 405.

Decided 1789-01

¶1Rule for trial or non-pros.

¶2A rule for trial, or non-pros, was taken in September term 1787, and notice at bar was entered on the docket. The cause was afterwards continued, generally, until January term 1789, and no notice given.

¶3The cause being now marked for trial, the plaintiff moved to put it off.

¶4But the Court held, that the rule for trial, or non-pros., was continued; and that no new notice was necessary. If, therefore, the plaintiff does not go on to trial, the defendant is entitled to a non-pros.(a)