Continual Claim

[L. Lat. eontinu.um clameum,'] In old English law. A formal claim made by a party entitled to enter upon any lands or tenements, but deterred from such entry by menaces, or bodily fear, for the purpose of preserving or keeping alive his right. It was called continual, because it was reqmred to be repeated once in the space of every year and day. It had to be made as near to the land as the party could approach with safety, and when made in due form, had the same effect with, and in all respects amounted to a legal entry. Idit. sect.

419 — 423. Co, Litt. 260 a. 3 Bl, Com. 175.

Lord Coke calls it an entry in law, and says that it is as strong as an entry in deed.

Co. Litt. 266 b.

It has been lately abolished in England, by stat.

3 «fe 4 Will. IV. c. 27, § 11. 1 Steph. Com. 472.

CONTINUANCE; [L. Lat. coniinuatio.] In ancient practice: The adjournment of the proceedings in a cause from one day or one term to another. The entry of such adjournment on the record, expressing the ground of the adjournment, and appointing the parties to reappear at the given day. Steph, PI, SI, 81, (Am. ed. 1824.) In modern practice, llie postponement of the proceedings in a cause, as putting off a trial, &c. U. S. Digest and Supplement^ Continuance and adjournment. An entry made upon the record of a cause, for the purpose of formally continuing it in court; or rather, for the purpose of properly connecting the proceedings on the record.* After declaration, and before issue joined, the proceedings are continued by imparlance, (q. v.); after issue joined, ana before verdict, by vicecom>es non misit breve (q. V.); and after verdict or demurrer, by curia advisari vult, (q. v.) 1 Tidd*s Pr. 678. But some of these continuances are now disused, and in England they are entirely abolished.

Ru Us Bit. T. 4 Will, IV.

The adjournments under the old practice were always actually made in each cause, by express direction of the court; and the entries of them upon record were made in cofirt at the time of their being so directed, such entries being the only evidence the court would admit, of the manner in which the cause was disposed of. In order to estimate the peculiar propriety of these entries, we must refer to the two fundamental principles of the ancient practice; the first of which was, that the action must be under the immediate supervision of the court, throughout its whole course, from beginning to end, and that no act could be done by the parties except when in court. Under this rule, the proceedings could not be suspended, and the parties dismissed even temporarily, without leave, nor could the parties come again into court, and the proceedings be resumed, without similar leave, by having a day previously given to them for that purpose. The second principle was, that the record must/o//oi£F the action, keeping pace with every step of it, and accounting for every thing that was done during its process, so as to show the proper reason for it, viz.: the direction of the court. A compliance with these two principles was facilitated by the circumstances of the parties personally appearing and pleading in open court, and of the record being a contemporaneous minute of the proceedings.

See Record.